Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Further to the Secretary of State's answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), why has it taken until now for the Government suddenly to wake up to the fact that we should be co-operating with France over nuclear power? In 2005, for example, the Italians took a 12.5 per cent. stake in a major nuclear power plant right on the Normandy coast, our nearest geographical point in France. Is it not the case that over 10 years, the Government have been very indolent at planning for our nuclear power decommissioning and left the UK very exposed, given the length of time that it will take to build a new nuclear power station?

Roger Williams: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Construction is such an important factor, not only in the local economies of our country but in the national economy, that many of the industry's stakeholders despair at the fact that no single Minister is responsible for construction. The responsibility is spread between a number of Ministers and Departments. Indeed, the Federation of Master Builders is very concerned about skills in case the workers do not continue to operate in this country, and there is a question of design as well. The construction industry deserves a single Minister. When will the Secretary of State deliver on that?

Mark Pritchard: With 30 post offices in Shropshire due for closure, and three in my constituency—Sambrook, King Street Wellington and Church Aston—does the Minister share the concern of local residents and the many local businesses that have to use those post offices? If he does share the concern of my constituents, and of six of his Cabinet colleagues, will he put on the record that if a business case is made that those post offices are viable and needed in the community that he will intervene with the Post Office and stop the closures?

Peter Luff: In its report of 8 February, the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee expressed concerns about certain aspects of the consultation process, many of which could be addressed quite quickly. Despite the significant funding that the Government are putting into the network, we are concerned that there is apparently no policy in place to prevent the further shrinkage of the network from 11,500 down to the 7,500 figure that meets the access criteria. Does the Minister therefore understand my disappointment that despite the early indications that the Department would expedite its response to the report, it so far looks unlikely even to meet the informal deadline, which is normally two months?

Patrick McFadden: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the serious work that the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Select Committee has done on this issue. It has now issued three reports, and we will respond to the report that he mentioned very soon. I note the Committee's specific proposal to make it clearer that the basis of the consultation was the implementation of the programme rather than it simply being a referendum on whether there should be closures. As we now know, both parties accept the need for closures. The Conservative Front-Bench spokesperson made that clear in the debate on the subject a couple of weeks ago. The hon. Gentleman's Committee made a very good point on that subject, and I hope that Post Office Ltd will take it up.

John Hutton: Obviously, we are always looking at ways to support the rural post office network with new business opportunities, and I know that Alan Cook, the chief executive, is fully committed to doing that. I should also make another point, of which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware. The Government are heavily subsidising the rural post office network. My hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs has made clear in questions today the extent of that support and what would happen if it were not available. Post offices in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, and in many other rural constituencies, would find it impossible to operate if it were not for that subsidy. So, the size of the network is being sustained, and it is being significantly built on compared with what it would be if we were just relying on an ability to run a commercial service. That is the right and proper thing for us to do, because we recognise the important role that post offices play in every constituency in Britain, including our rural areas.

Tom Brake: I handed in a 2,000 signature post office petition to the Department on Monday and I hope that the Minister has received it and will reply to those 2,000 constituents. Will the Minister call on the Post Office to review its plans to close four post offices in Carshalton and Wallington and, in particular, the Seymour road post office where there are plans to develop housing in the next couple of years?

Graham Stuart: Having ordered the closure of 2,500 post offices, the Government emasculated Postwatch to stop it being an effective voice of the consumer. Not content with that, they now plan to abolish Postwatch. Will the Minister assure us today that the consumer voice will be restored when new arrangements are put in place?

John Hutton: We always look very carefully at the impact of this regulation to ensure that it is proportionate and reasonable. The Low Pay Commission has looked at the matter from time to time, and I am sure that it will continue to focus its thoughts and opinions on it. Minister will obviously act on its recommendations in due course.

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for giving us the forthcoming business. May I congratulate her on her performance yesterday at Prime Minister's questions?
	The number of people affected by eating disorders in the UK is 1.1 million. On Tuesday, Professor Janet Treasure said that the fashion industry's obsession with thinness has
	"a dangerous influence on the public."
	Yesterday, the Periodical Publishers Association announced that its editors were reconsidering the practice of airbrushing pictures of models in their magazines. The private sector is developing a clear strategy for dealing with eating disorders, but when will the Government do the same? Will the right hon. and learned Lady make a statement outlining Government policy on eating disorders, body image and the media?
	Today, a report on the Counter-Terrorism Bill was published by the Committee of Selection. Although more than 50 Labour MPs oppose the Government's plans for pre-charge detention, not one of them has been put forward by the Labour Whips to serve on the Public Bill Committee. Does not that manipulative repression of legitimate dissent totally undermine the Prime Minister's statement about restoring power to Parliament? Membership of the Public Bill Committee should reflect the balance of views in the House, so will the Leader of the House take up the matter with the Government Chief Whip?
	Yesterday, in conflict with the opinion of many Labour Members, the Leader of the House denied that the abolition of the 10p income tax rate would have any effect on poor families. With household bills, mortgage repayments and everyday prices rising—even the  Daily Mirror today published a table showing how the poorest will be worse off, under the headline "Fury at 10p Tax Axe"—her denial seems staggering. However, it may be no wonder that we should learn today that although the Government usually publish the annual child poverty figures in March, this year they will bury the bad news by delaying publication until after the local elections. So can we have a statement from the Work and Pensions Secretary to explain that decision?
	This morning the Housing Minister issued a written statement on eco-towns, two thirds of which are planned to be in Conservative seats. On 1 February, as is recorded at column 635 of  Hansard, the Minister agreed with the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) that acceptance of an eco-town was "an important consideration" for local communities. Many eco-towns are the subject of fierce local opposition, and there are real concerns about the planning process that will apply to them. Will the Leader of the House do her job and give hon. Members the opportunity to represent their constituents by allowing a debate on eco-towns in Government time?
	This week, the Defence Secretary made a statement announcing that the withdrawal of troops from Iraq would be delayed. Last October, with blatant disregard for Parliament, the Prime Minister announced planned troop withdrawals to the media in the middle of the Conservative party conference in order to grab a headline. May we have a debate on the Government's misuse of the media?
	Finally, may we have a debate about the teaching English literature? We learned this week that politicians around the world had been asked to name their favourite poem for a new book. Tony Blair chose Rupert Brooke's "The Soldier", but what poem did the current Prime Minister choose? He chose part of a PhD thesis
	"about the individual's limited powers of self-sufficiency".
	The author said that it had been intended as
	"a critique of John Locke's ideas about the self-sufficient individual in the state of nature".
	That tells us rather a lot about the Prime Minister—but why did he not choose a poem by Rabbie Burns? Given the recent goings on in No. 10, there are a few that would seem appropriate. Perhaps he could choose "Despondency: An Ode" or "Ah, Woe is Me, My Mother Dear"—although most of us would probably settle for "The Farewell".
	With that, may I wish all Members of the House, and its staff, a very enjoyable recess?

Harriet Harman: We have recently had a full debate on post offices, and we have just finished topical questions to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, which has responsibility for post offices. So there has been a great deal of opportunity to debate the issue in the House. The important thing now is for Members to make representations as part of the consultation.

Simon Hughes: May I join the congratulations to the right hon. and learned Lady on her historic first as a woman Labour MP answering Prime Minister's questions yesterday, and on a good south London robust performance, which was very welcome.
	The right hon. and learned Lady has announced two pieces of legislation for remaining stage debates in the first fortnight back after the April break. May I ask her to reflect on the fact that on Monday, when we debated the remaining stages of the Housing and Regeneration Bill, all that we feared came to pass? We completed consideration of only one of six groups of amendments. There was full debate on only three of 20 Government new clauses, only 29 of 109 Government amendments, only five of 18 Opposition new clauses, and only four of 98 Opposition amendments. Clearly, it was a completely ridiculous failure to scrutinise large parts of the Bill. The Leader of the House has helpfully said that she will look into finding a process that means that Government amendments get extra time that does not detract from Opposition scrutiny time. Please may we have a change to the system before we consider the remaining stages of further major Bills, so that they do not suffer the same fate?
	The Leader of the House announced that the debate on the Energy Bill—one of the Bills whose remaining stages have yet to be completed—is to be on 30 April. I think that everybody is aware that that is the day before local elections in England and Wales, and many colleagues will probably be elsewhere. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] Because they may be seeking to advance democracy in their own patch; that is why. Will she reflect on whether the debate might be held on a better date than the day before the known annual local election day, so that we can ensure better attendance when we discuss that important Bill?
	Please may we have the debate that many of us have asked for, in different ways, on the OECD's investigation of Britain's failure over 10 years to introduce an anti-bribery and anti-corruption policy? The Government have confirmed in a White Paper that they want Law Officers to keep the power to intervene to discontinue proceedings in corruption and national security cases, following the BAE Systems Saudi Arabia case. Will the Leader of the House put it to her colleagues that that is completely unhelpful to the reputation of Britain? May we have that debate, so that we can introduce a decent anti-corruption policy and not be under investigation by an official body working on behalf of the international community?
	Lastly, may we have a debate on yesterday's report from the newly independent Office for National Statistics? It shows that after 10 years and more of a Labour Government the poverty gap has not closed, and that three groups in the community continue to have specific disadvantages: disabled people, people from minority ethnic communities and people in disadvantaged areas. The right hon. and learned Lady has a traditional view in favour of social equality but, sadly, in many areas, her Government have not delivered that equality. May we have an honest debate on why that is, and on whether they will do better in their remaining days in office?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman has continued to raise concern about the Government's handling of the Housing and Regeneration Bill—a matter that was brought up last week in business questions. There are two issues: the first is the volume of amendments and the second concerns timing and the question of when the amendments were laid before the House. I think that we all recognise that if points are raised in Committee, and the Government agree to respond to those points, amendments have to be tabled, and I think the majority of the amendments tabled for the remaining stages were the result of issues raised in Committee.
	As far as the timing is concerned, my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House and I looked into the issue. The overwhelming majority of the amendments were tabled on the Tuesday before the debate, which was held on the following Monday. Obviously it would have been better if they had been tabled earlier, but as they were tabled on Tuesday, the House not having sat on the Monday, hon. Members had nearly a full week to consider them, and I do not think that that is an egregious lack of time. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), wrote to Committee members before the amendments were tabled to let them know about them. Of course, the amendments were a matter for the whole House, but my hon. Friend had the courtesy to write to Committee members, who he knew were particularly concerned with the Bill.
	The question of the time given to a Bill's remaining stages is particularly difficult. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) has complained about the backlog of Bills awaiting Second Reading; that is part of the problem resulting from the amount of time taken to discuss the Lisbon treaty. There are therefore time constraints on Second Readings and remaining stages. Obviously, it is always desirable to have more time to consider amendments on Report than we get. Because of the concerns about the tabling of amendments on the Housing and Regeneration Bill, my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will ensure that amendments are tabled promptly for subsequent Bills, starting with all the amendments being tabled today to the Local Transport Bill, which will go into Committee when the House comes back from the recess.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Energy Bill. When the House is sitting, House business must be scheduled. All House business is important and the House does not rise for the day before local elections. It is therefore right that we should continue with the business, including the Energy Bill.
	On the role of the Law Officers in prosecutions, the hon. Gentleman knows that that matter comes within the scope of the Constitutional Renewal Bill, which has just been published in draft. There will be plenty of scope for consideration of that draft Bill before it comes to the House for its Second Reading.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned inequality and the gap between rich and poor, with particular reference to disabled people and black and Asian people. We are planning to introduce an equality Bill, one of the objectives of which is to narrow the gap between disabled people, and black and Asian people, and the rest of society.

Jim Sheridan: Can we have a debate on health and safety at the workplace? My right hon. and learned Friend may be aware of a recent debate on Iraq in which Members on both sides of the House raised the question of the untimely deaths of 170 of our service personnel. Over the same period, double that number of workers in the construction industry have lost their lives. Therefore, will she assure the House that every British worker's life is important? Can we have an inquiry or a debate on why so many people are losing their lives in the construction industry?

Harriet Harman: I recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes. As a champion of his constituents, he knows that the question of lack of affordable housing is very important indeed. One thing that London's Mayor, Ken Livingstone, has done is increase the amount of affordable housing in London. He is pledged to increase it even further—by an extra 50,000 new affordable homes. One choice that people face in the London mayoral election is whether to have more affordable housing, better transport and more policing.

John Hayes: Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), surely the House deserves a particular opportunity to debate the House of Lords' report "The Economic Impact of Immigration", which I remind the Leader of the House said that there was little or no economic benefit to Britain from the present high levels of immigration. I know that it is considered vulgar to debate these issues in the bourgeois liberal circles of the right hon. Lady where it is all fettuccine and feminism, but out there in the real world our constituents know that high levels of immigration put unsustainable pressure on our infrastructure, are the biggest single driver of housing demand and damage social cohesion. Now we also know that the Government's claims are based on worthless assumptions and disingenuous assertions, so we need an urgent debate.

Harriet Harman: Milton Keynes council should get on with it. Councils should not have to be dragged kicking and screaming to ensure that pensioners get their rights to travel. We first introduced this concession in 2000 when we required councils to make half price fares for pensioners and disabled people—that was a struggle, but at least it was brought in—we then required councils to ensure that within their own area all disabled people and people over 60 should have free bus passes, and we now require them to ensure that not only in their own area but in any area pensioners and disabled people can have free travel. This is important. People should be able to get out and about, and public authorities should be seizing this opportunity not dragging their heels.

Roger Williams: In my constituency, 14 post offices are due for closure, of which eight will be offered outreach facilities, most of which will be mobile services, yet the people living in those communities, particularly in Llanwrtyd Wells would prefer a hosted service in a shop, community centre or pub. When I asked the Post Office about this it said that the model shows that a mobile service would be better for the community. Can the Leader of the House assure me that that model will be made available to Members and placed in the Library of the House so that we can test it during the consultation period?

Harriet Harman: As I said earlier, this is a four-stage consultation, and only stage one is the subject of the announcement in today's written ministerial statement. Stage one is the three-month consultation process and there will then be the sustainability appraisal and the final planning policy statement, which will be debated in the House before it goes back to local planning applications. I should have thought that hon. Members would have welcomed the opportunity to ask questions of and discuss matters with the Minister for Housing.

Philip Davies: May we have a topical debate on political correctness at the Arts Council, in particular the subject of my early-day motion 1318, with regard to the Arts Council request that people should disclose their sexual orientation on the application form for funding.
	  [T hat this House deplores the Arts Council's decision to ask intrusive and irrelevant  questions about the sexual orientation of those applying for grants; believes that this should be a private matter and not something that individuals should be asked to reveal; considers that sexual orientation should be completely irrelevant in modern day Britain; notes that the idea of putting people into stereotypical tick boxes is an example of political correctness which is opposed by 80 per cent, of the people in Britain in an ICM poll; urges the Arts Council to take serious note of the many objections raised by eminent actors and actresses who find this both offensive and insulting; and calls on the Arts Council to end the request for this highly personal information immediately.]
	I hope that the Leader of the House will agree with me that people's sexual orientation should be a private matter, not something that public bodies ask to be disclosed before public money is given. May we have a debate on this important matter?

Mark Pritchard: May we have an urgent debate on the importance of faith schools? Why have the Government set their face on a class war against faith schools up and down this land, given all the hard-working parents, governors, teachers and pupils involved? Does the Leader of the House not realise that faith schools take pupils from all sorts of socio-demographic and religious backgrounds?

Harriet Harman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that when someone in a Department is answering a question, if it refers to a previous answer they should not just give the  Hansard reference but repeat the previous answer, because they have it in front of them and its saves hon. Members from having to do work that the Department could put in front of them.
	As regards a reference to a website, if a small bit of information is being referred to, there is no excuse for referring to the website—they should extract it from the website and put it in the answer. If what they are doing, having answered the question, is making a reference to a more general, bigger document of 200 pages, that is fair enough. However, it is not fair enough for parliamentary answers just to be signposts in six different directions—they should attempt to meet the Member's point and be accountable. I agree with the specific points that hon. Members have raised. My hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House and I are on the case, and I ask for specific bits of information in respect of this to be given to us, and we will follow them up with Departments. Departments are responsible for running the Government policy for which they have responsibility, but they are also accountable to the House.

Vernon Coaker: We have no intention to introduce so-called shooting galleries anywhere in the country, including my hon. Friend's constituency.
	The Government's vision is to produce a long-term and sustainable reduction in the harm associated with drugs, where fewer people start using drugs; where early intervention prevents and reduces the harms caused by substance misuse, particularly among those most at risk; where people with drug problems receive the treatment and support that they need to move on to lead healthy, productive lives; where communities are relieved of drug-related crime and the associated nuisance; and where organised trafficking networks are dismantled and their assets are recovered. That means that we want fewer young people and families to be harmed by drug misuse. We want to make sure that treatment is as effective as possible and that people get access to the support they need to re-establish their lives.
	We want to continue to drive down drug-related crime, and we want to put communities at the heart of our approach, working with them to tackle problems and communicating more effectively with them to improve confidence. We have set four targets that will help us to achieve that vision: to increase the number of drug users in effective treatment; to reduce drug-related offending; to reduce the number of people who think drug-related antisocial behaviour is a problem in their area; and to reduce substance misuse among young people. The new drug strategy and the associated action plan set out the action that the Government and our partners will take to reach those targets. Both documents are based around the four priorities of protecting communities, preventing harm to children, young people and families, adopting new approaches to drug treatment and social reintegration, and communications and community engagement.
	Before I say any more about those priorities and protecting communities, in the time I have left, I want to say something about cannabis. Our message has always been that cannabis is harmful and illegal. Although its use is decreasing, there is real public concern about the mental health effects, and it is our role to be prepared to respond to new evidence that shows a new threat or potential for increased levels of harm. We must be confident that we have the right position on classification, which is why the Home Secretary asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to review its position. The ACMD is continuing its review and will submit it and its advice to the Home Secretary at the end of this month. A decision about the reclassification, or not, of cannabis will be taken at that time, when we have received that evidence from the ACMD.
	In conclusion, we believe that we made progress under the previous drug strategy. The new drug strategy will have an emphasis on enforcement, but it will also place emphasis on ensuring that treatment is more effective. We have to look at the outcomes that come from treatment, and much of that will relate to the support we give, not only to get people into treatment, but to ensure that such treatment is effective, allowing people to move towards drug-free lives as far as is possible. I thank hon. Members for contributing to this extremely important debate, and I am grateful for the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner). I will continue to listen to what others have to say, because we all want to reduce the harm to our communities and to individuals.

James Brokenshire: Despite the Minister's fine words, the UK has the highest level of problem drug use in Europe. In 10 years, total recorded drugs offences have increased by 43 per cent., and, by the Government's own admission, class A drug use remains stubbornly high. The Government's latest strategy to "protect families and communities" has therefore been greeted with understandable scepticism and, in some quarters, derision. Class A drug use generates an estimated £15.4 billion in crime and health costs every year. The drug and alcohol charity Addaction estimates that since this Government came to power the total cost amounts to £110 billion, which is more than the NHS budget.
	It is a question of not only the monetary cost, but the human cost of drug addiction. In 2006, the number of confirmed hepatitis C infections reported from laboratories in England rose to 8,346—a rise of 10 per cent. in a year, with the Health Protection Agency forecasting an increasing number of deaths, transplants and hospital admissions for hepatitis-related end-stage liver disease.
	The single biggest risk factor is injecting drug use. Illicit drugs are cheaper than they have ever been. Since 1997, the average price of cocaine has fallen by a third and the price of heroin has dropped by 40 per cent. Even the simplest economic and market analysis tells me that if the price has gone down that much, the Government have failed to control supply. That is reflected by declining enforcement. In 2005, 1,082 people were prosecuted for the unlawful importation or exportation of drugs and 1,061 were convicted. In 2006, the number had fallen to 904 prosecutions and 870 convictions.
	The Government now try to offer us a new force to secure our porous borders, but this shiny new agency with its shiny new uniforms will have no police representation and no new powers of arrest. In reality, it is the existing border control badged under a different name. The effect is that it will not be able to arrest a single person caught with drugs. So much for the Prime Minister's promise that this force would have police powers to deal with those suspected of criminal offences.
	What of the Prime Minister's other statements about changing cannabis from a class C to a class B drug? Last September, he said:
	"Why I want to upgrade cannabis and make it more a drug that people worry about is because we don't want to send out a message—just like with alcohol—to teenagers, that we accept these things."
	He was right about alcohol. The Government's ill-conceived licensing policies have led to more violence on our streets late at night and to hospital A and E departments bearing the brunt, with alcohol admissions rising by a quarter.
	What is the Prime Minister waiting for? Why the delay? What more persuasion can he possibly need? Super-strength skunk cannabis now accounts for some 80 per cent. of all seizures. Its links with psychosis, paranoia and schizophrenia become more apparent every day. Even the Association of Chief Police Officers, which initially supported the decision to downgrade cannabis, now states:
	"The 2004 change in classification of cannabis has inadvertently provided an opportunity for the greater and now flourishing illegal market in the production, distribution and use of cannabis throughout the UK and potentially beyond."
	We need action, not more delay. I challenge the Under-Secretary to make a commitment here and now to reclassifying cannabis. He has the evidence, the power and, frankly, the duty to do so.

James Brokenshire: As we know, 80 per cent. of seizures are of super-strength cannabis. We therefore urgently need to change the classification and send out the message that the Prime Minister said that he wanted to convey. I will deal with treatment, which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, shortly, because it is a fundamental issue and one of the failures that we must tackle.
	The Home Office does not appear to know the scale of the problem. Its strategy document states:
	"Cannabis factories represent a worrying development. It is clear that serious, organised criminals are investing in the production of cannabis on a commercial scale."
	The document continues:
	"Intelligence from the community will be used to target drug markets and the sources of domestically-produced drugs such as cannabis factories."
	Yet, when we ask for a breakdown of the number of cannabis factories detected by each police force, the Home Office simply replies that that information is not kept centrally.
	So much for intelligence.
	The flawed approach applies not only to enforcement. Drug treatment is mired—under the latest plan, it will stay mired—in muddled and ineffective thinking. It is telling that the latest policy document contains only two references to "recovery". Neither relates to recovery from drugs—they both refer to asset recovery—and I will say more about that shortly.
	Fundamentally, the Government's approach is not about ridding people of addiction, but switching people from an illicit drug to a substitute prescribed drug. The necessity of abstinence, which is recognised as the key step on the road to recovery in other European countries, is notably absent from the approach. As the prisons and addictions forum of the Centre for Policy Studies says in its critique of the latest strategy:
	"The harm reduction techniques that are espoused to achieve this goal, when stripped bare, seem to rely almost entirely on replacing one substance with another as a way to manage and solve dependency without addressing the issues underlying it. Government policy in the treatment domain is revealed, like the emperor's new clothes, as not being treatment at all."

John Mann: What would the hon. Gentleman say to hon. Members, who have called for more methadone prescribing in newspapers such as  The Daily Telegraph? One example is the right hon. Member for Witney, who did so in an article in  The Daily Telegraph and another in the  Edinburgh Evening News.

James Brokenshire: Methadone has its place in the treatment regime, for example, when sex workers move from addiction and genuine desperation. My point is that people should not be kept on methadone, but moved from that through abstinence-based treatment, so that they beat their addiction.
	With the Government, if one does not measure something, it simply does not matter. The new document provides an Orwellian definition of "effective treatment", which is satisfied if someone is,
	"discharged from the treatment system 12 weeks or more after triage; or that remain in treatment 12 weeks after triage; or that were discharged in less than 12 weeks in a care planned way".
	As I said earlier, it is hardly surprising that recovery is the word that dare not speak its name.
	Instead, the Government are supposedly offering us more rights of asset recovery, with the Home Office news release breathlessly promising that,
	"those who buy 'bling', plasma screens and other household goods, to avoid circulating cash, will have their assets seized before they have a good chance to disperse them".
	No one has been able to explain what is wrong with the existing powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which include confiscation orders and restraint orders that can be sought from a judge before conviction. The policy does not bear examination. Even if there were a hypothetical need for more rights, the complete failure of the Assets Recovery Agency, necessitating its merger with Serious Organised Crime Agency, underlines where the real focus and attention should lie.
	As for the Government's apparent proposals to remove benefits from drug users dropping out of treatment, as one drugs charity kindly put it, the policy "needs further explanation".
	The Government are out of ideas, out of the real world and on the wrong path. The plan is an explicit admission of failure, which cannot be disguised by the hotch-potch of gimmicks cobbled together to masquerade as a strategy. We need a zero tolerance approach to drugs from our shores to our streets, with a proper border police force, the reclassification of cannabis, abstinence-based rehabilitation, and drug treatment in prison.
	Carl Gustav Jung said:
	"Every form of addiction is a bad thing, irrespective of whether it is alcohol, morphine or idealism".
	The Government's addiction is not idealism, but image: they measure inputs rather than achieve outcomes; they want to spin perception rather than change reality; and they commission reviews rather than take action. Their time has come for a long spell in rehab.

Paul Flynn: I will not pursue the superficial speech of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire), which will embarrass his party leader.
	We are in a time of change, and we must have the honesty to examine our two 10-year strategies. One was introduced in the House—I recall the debate 10 years ago, when there was great optimism. The drugs tsar was to be appointed and things were going to change enormously. A reduction of 50 per cent. in drug use was proposed—a ludicrously ambitious figure. We are also signed up another policy; indeed, the whole free world is signed up to the United Nations policy. It was decided in the same year, 1998, and its aim is the complete eradication of or a substantial reduction in all drug cultivation and use. Who could sign up to such a thing or believe that that was possible? That policy comes to fruition this year, but we have made virtually no progress on it.
	What has happened since 1998? We have spent billions of pounds, with the agreement of every party in the House; there was only dissenting voice to the policy in 1998. The result is figures—I will give just one, as I do not want to spend my whole 10 minutes talking about the figures—that show a reduction in the number of deaths caused by heroin. There has not been a reduction; what has happened is that the base year was changed. A reduction of 2 per cent. is being claimed on the basis of setting the base year as 1999, but if we use 1998, the proper base year, we see that there has been an increase in deaths of 10 per cent.

Paul Flynn: I will not go into the details of why the speech that the hon. Member for Hornchurch made was superficial, but he missed the point. Cannabis is a minor part of the problem, and reclassification is of no importance whatever. There are much more serious problems, which the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) well understands. We need to get to the heart of them, and that is happening elsewhere.
	There are two, or possibly three, optimistic signs. One is at the United Nations, which has recognised that world opinion is changing. There was a time when this country had very few drug users—fewer than 1,000 addicts. We became tough and had a zero-tolerance policy, doing all the things that the Opposition spokesman in this debate wants to do, but sadly we did not become intelligent about drugs. We had that policy in 1971. The result is that we now do not have 1,000 addicts; we have 280,000 addicts. We have a problem that is permanent and a great scourge among our young people.
	We did not show an example to the people in eastern Europe, who effectively said, "When the iron curtain fell and drugs came into our countries, we looked to you guys in the west to tell us how to deal with them." What they heard was a babel of conflicting voices and advice. The result is 5 million addicts in the Russian Federation. I had the experience of visiting a hospital in Moscow—I can feel the emotion churning up as I think of it—that was filled with thousands of patients, every one of whom was a child of a drug user or sex worker born with AIDS. Those things have happened because of our failure to tackle poverty and because of the self-gratification of the politicians. We want popular policies that give us good headlines in the daily papers, which do not tell us that we will go to pot if we are found in possession of an intelligent idea or something that works.
	There is a new European convention, which was presented by a British rapporteur in the Council of the Europe in September and is supported by all parties in the House in the Council and by all 47 countries there. The convention is similar to another document called "The Rome Consensus", which enjoys the support of more than 120 nations and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Those two documents—"The Rome Consensus" and the new European convention, which is yet to go to the Council of Ministers—say a great deal, but the basic argument is that our reliance on the criminal justice system for solving the problem of drugs has not worked. Substitution has worked. Every £1 that we spend on substitution, treatment, needle exchanges and so on is worth £12 that we spend on the criminal justice system.
	The situation in our prisons is tragic. I had the awful experience of visiting the family of two young people my constituency who would be classified as two of the great successes of our system, because they went into prison as heroin users and came out clean. The system was working—what a triumph; how wonderful. Indeed, I am sure that those young people are named somewhere in the figures. The young man who came out lived a day; the woman who came out lived a week. They went back to their drugs because they did not have the chance of being looked after. That is an abject failure.
	We are now in an awful position. The hon. Member for Hornchurch said that we are the worst country in Europe for drugs, which is as it is. Every one of the countries that have shooting-up galleries and have taken a more compassionate line, treating drug users not as criminals, but as patients, have less harm. We are missing something and we are failing. We need to get to the point where we recognise that, despite all our self-satisfaction as politicians—our desire to get good headlines to get ourselves re-elected—we are failing a generation whose lives are being destroyed by drugs. That is the lesson of today.
	I believe that there will be a change. The atmosphere is changing in the United Nations, which determines everything. The United Nations went along with the myth that we can control drugs at the supply—we tried that in Colombia for nearly 30 years and in Afghanistan, but it has been an utter, abject failure. After £250 million of taxpayers' money being spent on drug eradication in Helmand province, the result is that the drug crops there are the highest in history and the price of heroin on the streets of London is the cheapest that it has ever been. That is failure from both angles.
	Let us stop congratulating ourselves on what clever politicians we are, on what great successes we have enjoyed or on the press supporting us, including on the completely foolish idea of reclassifying cannabis, especially when all the evidence is that reclassifying it probably made very little difference, because fashion and many other things were involved. Indeed, the use of cannabis went down, and everyone admits that. There is another demand to reclassify it upwards, but the whole of drug-taking policy, in my 20 years in Parliament, has been an evidence-free zone that is rich in prejudice, ignorance and denial.
	We are all drug users in many ways. We should look to a policy that puts the emphasis on education, the truth and the things that work. They include drug substitution, which has been mentioned, not some idiotic idea about zero tolerance, which does not work, or the other foolish idea, about khat. Khat is a drug with its own dangers, but if we decide to prohibit it, we will immediately drive a wedge between the Somali and Yemeni communities and the police, and drive the trade underground. Khat is currently legal, but if it became illegal, Somali areas would be divided up into territories that were guarded with guns. If we want to create another minor crime wave, we should prohibit khat, because people will keep using it—they have used it for centuries as part of their tradition.
	Prohibiting khat is another instant solution that appeals to politicians. I urge the House to consider the position in the real world. We have a terrible record as politicians, but when I saw the parents of the young man who died in my constituency, did I blame myself for what I had done? I know that if the policies that I and others advocated in this place 20 years ago had been put into practice and come to fruition, those young people would probably still be alive today.
	We have taken a path that is not based on the truth or on the practical ways of dealing with the problem. One of the best examples from other countries is from Portugal, which has already been mentioned. In 2001, the Government in Portugal decided to de-penalise all drugs. It was not a popular policy—the Government there were howled at by the press and the public thought that the politicians had gone mad—but the result was a reduction in the total number of deaths from drugs in Portugal of 50 per cent. in five years. That is the most spectacular result of any drugs policy anywhere in the world. Other countries have adopted bold policies—the shooting-up galleries, for instance—that have been unpopular with lots of people, but that is not the path of popularity, which is increased drug use and the continuing scourge of drugs that is affecting the whole world.
	I know that many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, so I will draw my remarks to a close by begging everyone from both major parties—indeed, from all parts of the House—to look at what was said here in 1998 and at the ambitions that were announced. None of them has been achieved. We have had 10 years of utter, abject failure from all angles—from the waste of money involved to the fact that not a single prison in this country is free of drug use. One Conservative Member told me that he went into a prison and was told by a prisoner, "I've got a toothache that I'd like to get an aspirin for, but I have to wait until tomorrow morning to see a doctor, yet I can go from my cell and get every illegal drug you'd care to mention within a quarter of an hour." That is the reality of life in prison.
	If we cannot keep drugs out of prison, what hope is there for all the brave policies of zero tolerance working in the community and in clubs in our society? We needed to look at this issue through new eyes and to read the evidence, which says that the harm reduction techniques work. We need to concentrate on those techniques and end our reliance on the criminal justice system, which has increased the problem so tragically over the past 35 years.

Tom Brake: The hon. Gentleman has made a strong point that in some respects strengthens my point about widening the remit of the advisory council or setting up a royal commission that would have greater expertise to ensure that its decisions took into account a wider range of views. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Government would favour such a proposal.
	We need to focus on all the links in the drugs chain, from production through to supply, if we are to tackle this issue. I am sure that the Minister would agree that one aspect of the problem is the glamour that is often associated with drugs. This was highlighted in the recent annual report from the International Narcotics Control Board, which stated that treating stars leniently undermined people's faith in the criminal justice system and had a damaging effect on adolescents. Celebrities who are users might well be able to use their wealth to buy their way out of their habit through rehabilitation, but others might not be in that fortunate position. The Minister will undoubtedly agree that those so-called stars should be treated in exactly the same way as anyone else who is caught in possession of drugs.
	I wonder whether the Minister is as sad as I am that some celebrities seem to treat drugs as a bit of a joke. I have informed the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) that I was going to refer to him in his debate. He is not in his place today. It was extremely regrettable that, on "Have I Got News for You", he said:
	"I think I was once given cocaine but I sneezed and so it did not go up my nose. In fact, I may have been doing icing sugar."
	I do not know what other Members think about that, but I believe that that comment sends out a message that drugs are not a serious issue and that they can be treated almost as a joke. That is extremely regrettable coming from a person who is seeking to become the Mayor of London.
	There is much in the drugs strategy that we could not possibly oppose, including protecting communities through robust enforcement to tackle drug supply, drug-related crime and antisocial behaviour, and preventing harm to children, young people and families affected by drug misuse. The Government are going to have to demonstrate how they are going to achieve those aims. I had a useful meeting a few days ago with a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, in which she referred to a family in which the mother lived off the proceeds of crime, the daughter was dealing and the son was in prison for having dealt drugs. There were also two children of primary school age in that family. It is exactly that type of scenario that the Government's drugs strategy needs to address. How can we help all the different members of that family to get out of the situation that they are in? In particular, how can we ensure that those young children do not inevitably follow the line of business that the elders in that family have regrettably taken?

Brian Iddon: I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) had to say. It came over loud and clear, and it sounded like a war on drugs. I have always been against waging a war on drugs in the way that the Americans have tried to do. I prefer to wage a war on the causes of drug misuse, which, as far as I am concerned, are social exclusion and poverty. I know which party put people into poverty. I also know which party is now trying to dig people out of poverty; it is the party that I support.
	I believe that the Government have the political will to deal with the problem, although, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I do not always agree with them. The 10-year drug strategy document that has just been published marks a shift—no more than that—in the right direction. There is more talk about helping families, rather than about individuals who are addicted. An addict causes havoc in the entire family, not just the immediate family. There is also more talk about early intervention. As we know, in the case of all drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, the problem tends to start when a person is nine, 10, 11 or 12. If no one intervenes at that stage, the job is lost. The young person will truant, become an addict and become a general nuisance, associating with the criminal element of society.
	The United Nations has made some interesting comments recently. Its International Narcotics Control Board publishes a report in March each year, and I usually attend the launches. The press kit accompanying the 2005 report includes a statement from Professor Hamid Ghodse, of St George's hospital in London, who said:
	"Both rural farmers and socially marginalized city dwellers need and are entitled to the opportunity of a legitimate livelihood.
	We should make renewed efforts to reach all of them, striving to create environments less conducive to the production and abuse of drugs."
	I think that that is what it is all about. I do not think that the answer is to start a war on people once they have become addicted, although it is of course important to try to give people treatment.
	On 7 March this year the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs published a very interesting document, which I commend to Members. It is called "Making drug control 'fit for purpose': Building on the UNGASS decade", and was provided for a conference in Vienna between 10 and 14 March. It looks back over the 100 years during which we have tried to control the misuse of substances throughout the world. I shall return to the report shortly, but the main point that I want to make is that any war on drugs, any zero-tolerance approach or any hard action of that kind merely displaces the problem. There are a number of instances in which we have caused ourselves serious problems.
	The Moroccans have been waging a war on the farmers who have been growing cannabis in their country. Seventy per cent. of the cannabis sold in Britain used to come from that source. It is noteworthy that Moroccan cannabis contained only 5 per cent. of the psychoactive ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. It was smuggled across the straits of Gibraltar to the Costa del Sol. The Spanish were waging a war on drugs all along the coast, and as a result the import of cannabis from Morocco to Europe, including Britain, almost ceased. That created a vacuum in this country, which has now been filled by Thai and Vietnamese criminals who have started to farm cannabis in rented houses all over Britain. In Bolton alone, the police have invaded 30 houses in three months. People have been caught farming cannabis from the cellar to the attic.
	Seventy per cent. of the cannabis that is now sold on the streets of Britain is home-grown rather than imported. By stopping the Moroccan trade in cannabis with a 5 per cent. THC content, we have put on to the streets, through our own war on drugs, cannabis with a 15 per cent. THC content, which is causing our young people immense problems. Of course if children of nine or 10 start smoking cannabis of that sort they will blow their minds, and probably even damage their minds.

Brian Iddon: I should prefer to continue, if I may.
	We must be very careful about the way in which we apply our policies in this war on drugs. China had a huge problem with opium. In fact, it is often said that we planted opium in China to undermine the social structure of that country. So, of course, there was a war on the use of opium in China. What did we do? We displaced it to the golden triangle. Then we had a war on the use of opium in the golden triangle, and what happened next? It was displaced to Afghanistan. Ninety per cent. of the heroin that comes into this country now comes from Afghanistan. Every time we take action, we displace the problem.
	Another example is cocaine production in the Andean countries. Everyone knows that Colombia is, or was, the main source of supply. The Americans sprayed the crops. They gave the Colombian Government arms with which to tackle the rebels who were using the profits of cocaine manufacture to try to take over the Government. What happened there? We displaced production of the coca bush to Bolivia and Peru. The message that I am trying to get across is that the war on drugs does not work.
	Most of the cocaine that came into Britain came in via the Caribbean rim countries, especially Jamaica, and Kingston in particular. There were terrible problems with the selling of cocaine to European countries, including Britain. What did we do? We sent the Royal Navy into the Caribbean, and we have had huge successes there, but that has not ended the problem. Although cocaine is still coming into Britain via Jamaica, it is arriving in smaller quantities. Most of it is now going to west Africa, and some west African countries are now experiencing the corruption and deaths that Jamaica has experienced for decades.
	We must stop this war on drugs. It simply does not work, and we are spending billions of pounds on it. I am more concerned about the fact that we are displacing people by adopting a zero-tolerance approach and increasing enforcement measures. People do not want to be arrested. They do not want to go to prison, and they do not want criminal records. But there are plenty of drugs available on the internet, and there are plenty of drugs in the doctor's parlour—he will provide a prescription for them—and those are the drugs to which people are turning now.
	Let me quote another interesting statement:
	"The abuse and trafficking of prescription drugs is set to exceed illicit drug abuse",
	the United Nations has warned, adding:
	"The 'high' they provide is comparable to practically every illicitly manufactured drug."
	That is what is happening now. There are role models, from film stars to Robbie Williams. I could name a string of very interesting people who are not using illicit drugs, but getting their "buzz" from prescription drugs and even drugs that can be bought over the counter in the local chemist's shop, cough mixture included.
	I have been concerned about this for 10 years, and when the United Nations document turned up I decided, as chairman of the all-party parliamentary drugs misuse group, to interest the group in launching a public inquiry into the misuse of prescription and over-the-counter drugs. We launched one last summer, and so far we have received 75 pieces of evidence from organisations and individuals. It is a pity that I have no time to read out some of the letters from individuals whose relatives are addicted, in old people's homes or in their own homes. Carers have written to me saying, for instance, "The elderly person for whom I am caring is being completely knocked out by the general practitioner, and is addicted to benzodiazepines", or to over-the-counter or prescription drugs containing codeine or morphine.
	That is a huge problem, and it has nothing to do with the war on drugs. It is happening in front of us. I say "By all means adopt a zero-tolerance approach, but you will not stop people seeking relief from the turmoil that their minds are causing them." For that is the reason why people turn to drug misuse: it is triggered by something that has gone wrong in their lives, perhaps the death of a close relative or a friend. We ought to intervene and help those people instead of locking them up.
	The UN says that drug misuse is a "disease of development". What it means by that is that we in the more developed countries are more subject to stress; we are always increasing our performance and productivity, which increases our stress levels, and we sometimes need to escape from reality in order to get some relief. That is why people turn to misusing not only controlled drugs, but increasingly prescription and over-the-counter drugs.
	I have discussed geographical displacement, to borrow a phrase the UN uses. It also mentions substance displacement. Methamphetamine was not a classified drug at one time, but it came on to the scene and we recently bunged it into class A. As a medicinal chemist, I know that every time we classify a drug into categories A, B or C, there will be another drug that is not yet illegal waiting in the queue for some person—or, rather, thousands of people—to misuse. All of this will never stop.
	The Science and Technology Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), the RSA—or Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce—and even eminent people such as Professor Colin Blakemore and Professor David Nutt, who is a member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, have said that drug classification is a waste of time. This debate about whether cannabis should have been kept in class B, as previously, or should remain in class C, where we have now dropped it, or be put back into class B again is yo-yo politics, and it will have absolutely no effect at all on young people. They want to know which drugs give them a buzz, regardless of whether they are illegal. They want to know how much those drugs cost, too, and as the street prices of drugs are falling, more and more people will, of course, be tempted to try them. It is not the classification of drugs that matters; it is economic factors such as price that switch people on to drugs once they have had a problem in their lives.
	This is a complex issue, and I recommend that Members read the recent UN reports. Let me read out one final quote. The UN commission says that
	"there is indeed a spirit of reform in the air"—
	I hope we hear it here this afternoon—"to make the conventions" of 1961, 1971 and 1981, which are the three UN conventions on which our policies are based,
	"fit for purpose and adapt them to a reality on the ground that is different from the time that they were drafted".
	I shall leave the House with that thought.

David Amess: I enjoyed listening to the speeches of the hon. Members for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), and I shall re-read them to absorb further what they had to say. I have not previously heard the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East speak on the specific issues before us, although I have heard the hon. Member for Newport, West discuss them. He and I worked together on issues concerning arthritis, so we will not fall out on cannabis. However, I will just say to both those hon. Members that I fundamentally disagree with their views on cannabis.
	We have a good and competent Minister, and I listened carefully to his comments. I wish him well, but he has a tough battle ahead. In my early years in the House, when I represented a different constituency, a constituent called Leah Betts died as a result of ecstasy; her father later became an advisor to the Government. A satirical programme managed to gain admittance to this House and interviewed me about a drug called "cake". Lord Newton of Braintree had the Minister's job at the time. His officials answered the questions we tabled on "cake"; we as Members of Parliament did not know whether "cake" was a slang term. I am hardly a superstar, but even nowadays sometimes when I walk along a street a very young person will run up to me who has seen that bit of television footage—it is shown over and again. What I usually say to them is, "Okay, you thought it was funny, but did it actually put you off taking drugs?" Obviously, the parents of Leah Betts were not particularly pleased at the trivialisation of the matter.
	On cannabis, I say to the hon. Members for Bolton, South-East and for Newport, West, "Forget the classification." I was a Member in 2003 when we voted on the matter. Eleven Labour Members voted against. The current Prime Minister thought that we should change the classification. It is not about the classification; it is about the impression it gave to young people, which was absolutely wrong. Why did we not listen to Marjorie Wallace of SANE, who really does know what she is talking about?
	I am not about to tell the Minister that locking such youngsters up in prison will provide a solution. What my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said was right. I do not understand why our prisons are awash with drugs—perhaps I am being naïve—but they are. I wish the Minister a fair wind in trying to deal with that as part of his strategy. It is a terrible situation.
	The psychotic effect of cannabis is absolutely proven. I wish the Government had listened then to the advice of the International Narcotics Control Board. This week, senior police officers have said that changing the classification was not a good idea. Where were they in 2003 and 2004? Were their words not reported? Also, why was the current Prime Minister not against the reclassification? I understand the point that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East made, but we should think about the impression that it gave. All Members have constituents who come along to their surgeries and tell them about the devastating consequences of cannabis on the lives of young people.

David Amess: I said that I was not going to fall out with the hon. Gentleman, but I must say that his view on cannabis is absolutely wrong.
	Let me conclude by making a plea. Over the last week or so, a Liberal peer insulted Essex when he attacked a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). However, I noticed that yesterday the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) was wearing a T-shirt with the logo "Proud to come from Essex". We in Essex have a wonderful organisation called 2 Smart 4 Drugs; I will send the Minister some details about it. As we all know, the first step towards effective prevention is early education, and that is what it specialises in. It is an award-winning drugs and alcohol community project, organised by Essex police in conjunction with Essex FM. I have attended some of its presentations. This is not money wasted; it gets real results, but—the Minister knows what I am about to say—it needs more money. The organisation is led by Victoria Wilson of Essex police and a wonderful lady called Pam Withrington, whose aunt, Jo Robinson, tragically lost her son as a result of drug misuse. I ask that the Minister, in his very difficult task, looks at this project, which has made a big difference in Essex.
	I hope that the House will come to a positive conclusion, because all Members are united in trying to do something about this situation—I will not call it a war—but it is a very tough nut to crack.

John Mann: With respect, I do not think there is time to take interventions.
	People are smoking far less, so people are smoking cannabis far less. I have seen no evidence of any diversion towards people baking cannabis cakes or anything like that. Cannabis use is decreasing. That does not mean that where someone does use cannabis, it is more or less of a problem than it was before.
	The information is there. I am sure that all hon. Members have read my 2002 report to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, in which I described in great detail hydroponics and cannabis, the experience of the Vietnamese ex-pat community in Australia, in Melbourne in particular, and what would happen here when those techniques were used. In essence, people would grow for profit in their houses, using the latest techniques, on an industrial scale. That happened in Australia, because a market existed, and it has happened in the UK. Wherever the new markets in drugs emerge—the most difficult markets will be in chemical concoctions of one kind or another that are created not abroad but here in the UK—the drugs involved will be the new wave that will come into this country. The drugs I am talking about are already here, but their use will grow. We can see all this from the evidence of what has happened elsewhere.
	However, monitoring outcomes would give the Government some good news. They would be able to declare, as they will at some stage, that cannabis use has declined. More importantly, analysis of school exclusions in respect of drugs and alcohol demonstrates absolutely that drugs and alcohol are not a major problem in schools. There is no evidence of such a problem; minor numbers are being disciplined. If my schoolkids are asked, they say, "A few teachers come in the worse for wear for alcohol, but do you think we would be stupid enough to buy or use drink or drugs in school? We know where to get it outside if we want it."
	Let us examine one of the great myths, because the Government have the statistics to quantify things. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) is wrong about overdose deaths. On the basis of the classifications used by coroners' courts, the number of deaths from heroin overdose in this country is falling. Nowhere is that more the case than in my constituency, where the fall has been huge. In 2002, 11 of my constituents died because of heroin, but only two have done so in the past four years. The matter is quantifiably provable.
	As for accident and emergency admissions, I recommend that every hon. Member ask their local hospital whether the drugs strategy is working in their area and monitor the situation. The figures on accident and emergency admissions for an overdose of injectable drugs give a clear trend line. In my area, a fourfold reduction has taken place, which means that the drugs strategy, particularly with regard to heroin, is working there. Strangely, the biggest reduction in Britain in the number of house burglaries has occurred in my area—and I suggest that there is a correlation. In monitoring those outcomes, the Government should be pulling those correlations together. I do not care who takes the credit—the police, the Government, the health service or charities. Everyone can have some credit.
	If anyone asks me what has happened about drugs in my constituency, I can tell them. If they had walked down Bridge street in Worksop five years ago, they would not have got five yards without being accosted by a young person on heroin. Now, although there are one or two problems with the Tory council, lots of cars are being parked illegally, the Tory leader drove illegally the wrong way when he made his fleeting visit, and the police are failing to tackle cyclists, someone walking down Bridge street would struggle to find a drug addict. That is what is happening in the real world, so quantifiable proof exists: I recommend cost-benefit analysis.
	The other thing that I strongly recommend to the Government—this concurs with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) said—is to examine causation. My analysis of my constituents who have been on heroin is that the vast majority have now come off it since my heroin inquiry in 2002. By far and away the key factor in young people getting involved with drugs is major trauma. That can be identified in different ways. For example, it might be a major change in economic circumstances, but it is more likely to be the death of a parent, often a father—my amateur research base tells me that—or a messy divorce, a split in the family situation, abuse or attacks. Those are by far and away the factors that lead young people into drug addiction. Such things can be identified. It is now far more acceptable to talk about things such as child abuse within a family in society and societal organisations than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Such things can be addressed, but we do not pull the two issues together. That is where the improvement to the Government's strategy can be tweaked in a big way. We can use the data on outcomes, but we must put them together more cleverly. We must examine the question of causation, and in particular, the role of major trauma among children and young people in leading to addiction.
	We know what the Government's drugs strategy is, and we know that not all Labour Members have agreed with it. I generally do agree with it, because it generally works. We know what the Conservative policy is, because it has been outlined recently: before, everyone would have been put into residential rehabilitation, but now they will be put into secure residential rehabilitation. The proposal has not yet been costed, although my costings of it show that it would be quite expensive, and the definition of "secure" has been left a little vague. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) did not outline it further. I am sure that he and his colleagues will take the opportunity to explain about the 280,000 secure residential places—or however many the number is; a figure has not yet emerged. The Conservatives' recovery policy has also been clearly outlined, even though their leader repeatedly and consistently took totally the opposite approach—his was more in line with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West; it could have been the same speech. The Tory leader is out of synch, but I am sure that he is accommodating himself to the current policy and learning it. There will be some interesting tensions there.
	We know, from a speech made by Fergus Ewing today, that the Scottish National party has stolen lock, stock and barrel the Tory party policy of recovery and abstinence. We know that Mr. Souter, who has helped the SNP in various ways, has inspired its new policy in his recent meetings with the party. At last the SNP has a policy! It is identical to the Conservative party's policy, which will make for some interesting debates.
	We still do not know what the Liberal Democrat policy is—individuals have different views, not least on cannabis—but we do know about the proposal by its new leader. His one statement on the matter was made on 21 December 2002 on the European Parliament proposal for a recommendation—B5 0541 is the paper—in which he makes it clear that he is in favour of the legalisation of drugs. We are beginning to see a policy emerge; it is in process. I hope that the Liberals will give us more of an opportunity in the near future to let us know—

David Wright: Of course I will be here for the winding-up speeches. I will then return to Telford and hunt out those Easter eggs for you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and return with them in two weeks' time if I have not already demolished them.
	The first of the four issues that I wish to bring to the House's attention is audio description on television. Yesterday, I met Caroline Ellis of the Royal National Institute of Blind People to discuss how we can ensure that digital television is fully accessible to people with sight problems and to examine some of the latest technology. Television plays a pivotal role in the lives of people with sight problems. Some 73 per cent.—nearly three in four—spend five hours or more a week watching television. It is a major source of information, news and entertainment, and 86 per cent. of people with sight problems would watch more television if more programmes were accessible.
	With that in mind, the RNIB is encouraging more of the 2 million blind and partially sighted people in the UK, including about 3,000 in my constituency, to watch TV by switching on a free existing service called audio description. Many of the nation's favourite TV moments have never been fully enjoyed by blind and partially sighted people. Relying on the soundtrack means that they cannot follow what is going on.
	I was shown a clip of a programme yesterday—it was "Doctor Who", which is one of my favourites and has a new series starting on Saturday. If I closed my eyes or looked away from the screen, I could not tell what was going on. One advantage of audio description is that in addition to the speech in the programme, there is commentary that fits in between the dialogue and describes the body language, expressions and movements of people on the screen. It makes the story clear through sound and is a fantastic innovation.
	As well as giving people with sight problems access to the nation's favourite entertainment and drama programmes, audio description stops people feeling isolated and excluded, because they can discuss programmes with family and friends who are watching at the same time. At the moment, about 13 per cent. of programmes on digital TV have audio description, which is not nearly enough. Many of those programmes are repeats on channels such as The History Channel. It is still worth while tuning in, but we need to ensure that more programmes have audio description.
	The service can be accessed on Sky, Virgin Media and some freeview boxes and integrated digital TVs. People can call an audio description hotline to get help, and I believe that the service brings a clear benefit to those with sight problems. The downside, as those with digital TVs will know, is that one has to navigate one's way through visual menus on the screen to select programmes to watch, which is difficult and frustrating for people who are blind or partially sighted. Audio description may be available on a programme, but they cannot access it because the digital menu is visual in nature. We need to take action on that so that people who are blind or partially sighted can navigate around the screen and secure access to the new services. We cannot have a large proportion of our population, including, as I have said, about 3,000 people in Telford alone, excluded from the service, given that in future digital television will be the only option.
	Digital switchover will come to the Central ITV region from 2011. I know that there will be a help scheme to ensure that households that have a disabled person or an elderly person over 75 in them, including those registered blind or partially sighted, can convert to digital TV on one set. Eligible people who are partially sighted or blind could do with securing a quality set-top box with audio description and easy-to-use remote controls, so that the TV guide on the screen tells them what programmes they are selecting and what is coming on next.
	The Government have not yet committed to ensuring that providers put audio description support into set-top boxes. It is important that they do so soon, so that all digital services have a talking menu, and a talking recording menu if there is a hard drive on the box. It would be good if the Government could commit to that initiative, which I am sure will secure cross-party support. It is important to thousands of people in constituencies across the country, and I would like to see it delivered as soon as possible.
	The second issue that the House needs to be made aware of before what I see from the annunciator is the April Adjournment, rather than the Easter Adjournment, is post offices. This week, we had the long awaited announcement about post office closures in Telford. I think that it is fair to say that the impact on the constituency was not as great as many had predicted. It had been suggested that at least four post offices would close in Telford, but in fact just one, at Randlay, has been named for possible closure. Ten others will remain intact. The main problem with Randlay post office is that it is very close to Telford town centre and a short bus ride from a Crown post office less than a mile away. I have spoken to the postmaster at Randlay, visited the post office there and written to every resident in the community. Throughout the six-week consultation period, I will help local people to make the case for the post office to stay open.
	Post Office closures are an emotive subject, but we need to examine the facts if we are to proceed logically. At present, we as taxpayers subsidise the national network to the tune of £3.5 million a week. That level of subsidy is clearly unsustainable, and some offices will have to close across the UK. That money could be invested in schools, hospitals or local policing. Additionally, our shopping habits are changing and we are increasingly using the internet, the telephone and other outlets to purchase services and things we used to buy at the post office. New technology and the increasing preference for direct payments and online services have, and will continue to have, a significant effect on how post offices provide services to their customers.
	We should not forget that locally, we have had some real successes in relation to post offices in recent years. I particularly want to thank the Co-op for its work to ensure that many post offices in Telford stay open. Three post offices have moved into Co-op stores: that has been extremely successful, and I am sure that similar moves have been successful elsewhere across the country. In Oakengates, Trench and Dawley the post office service is provided in the Co-op, where the environment is much better than that in the old offices. Post office services will remain at those three sites, and we will also be keeping services at Horsehay, Ironbridge, Brookside, Madely, Sutton Hill, Overdale and Telford town centre.
	Some people have suggested that I voted in this House for the closure of post offices. That is absolute nonsense, and a display of the worst kind of political opportunism. The Opposition motion that we debated that day would merely have postponed the consultation exercise while options such as having local councils taking over post office services were examined.
	In that debate, the Opposition made it clear that they would provide no new resources for post offices, and they were not even able to commit to maintaining the existing Government subsidy over the next decade. Also, I have seen no evidence that the Conservative-run Telford and Wrekin council will step in to save post office branches in Telford. If it were going to do so, it should give us the details of the plans and the precise amount of the council tax increase that would have to be imposed.

David Wright: I am meeting the postmaster of that office next Tuesday to look at the books. If it does make a profit, we will make the case that it should stay open and I shall work with local residents to that end.
	I recognise that post offices provide a critical resource for many communities, and we must make sure that the network is both viable and sustainable. Sustainability is the crucial element: without funding from this Labour Government, thousands more branches would have been under threat and there would have been thousands more closures.
	Of course, thousands of post offices closed under the previous Conservative Government, and as far as I am aware there was no compensation for sub-postmasters then. At least, they have received some compensation in recent years, and there has been a proper national debate about how we should move forward in respect of post offices. The Opposition campaign to keep open every post office branch in the country is a sham.
	The third issue I want to raise is Ironbridge, which is a world heritage site. I am chairman of the all-party world heritage sites group, and I am very proud to have in my constituency the Ironbridge gorge, which was inscribed in the UNESCO world heritage site list in 1986. The inscription relates the area's role in the birth of the industrial revolution, and even people who have not visited will know the iconic image of the iron bridge over the River Severn.
	The world heritage site is also a living community, with a resident population of about 4,000. They run businesses and live in the area, and there are also various museums along the gorge. The gorge itself attracts about 750,000 visitors a year, and about 300,000 pay to visit one or more of the 10 museum sites. The iron bridge was completed in 1779. As a symbol of the industrial revolution, it is recognised around the world. It is owned by the local council, under the guardianship of English Heritage.
	The gorge is one of the UK's most important visitor attractions. Through various sources, the nation has spent tens of millions of pounds of public money over the years to make sure that it acts as a tourist magnet and an engine for the local economy. The gorge is therefore incredibly important, but it is under threat from land instability caused by a combination of natural geology, past mining activity and the fact that its hillsides have been loaded with tipped waste, buildings and infrastructure.
	That instability is exacerbated by the flooding on the River Severn that happens every two or three years. A flood barrier has been established for the Wharfage, but the floods still cause significant erosion along the gorge. Generally, the land movement is quite gradual, but the times when it has been great and fairly catastrophic have resulted in the partial blockage of the river and caused the destruction of buildings and property. There is always the possibility that a blockage of the river could cause major flooding and damage, both upstream and downstream. Moreover, life and property could be put at risk if the clearing of that blockage caused a rapid release of water.
	A lot of work has been done in the gorge, much of it in recent times. Studies into the scale and extent of the flooding problem have been carried out, and they have identified the areas at greatest risk. Ground investigations have been undertaken by the council and land movement is being carefully monitored. The local council and the Government have acted in a partnership to invest in stabilisation, at Jiggers bank in 2002 and at the Lloyds phase 1 in 2007.
	Residents are aware of the problem. An information pack has been made available so that they can report incidents of land instability or any problems that they might encounter on their property. There is also an emergency plan covering the worst-case scenarios of what might happen in the gorge, but there is a need for further investment to ensure that the environment is stabilised.
	The local council, in partnership with the Government, has undertaken a cost-benefit analysis, and it is estimated that we need to spend about £86 million to ensure that the gorge is safe in the long term. If we delay, the cost may rise to more than £100 million—an enormous amount of money, and one that the local authority on its own clearly cannot come up with. I am therefore working with the local council to try and lobby Ministers to ensure that we get a fair share of resources so that the required works can be carried out.
	I shall set out a list of the works that need to be done. We need to complete the stabilisation of the Lloyds and Lloyds Head on opposite sides of the River Severn; we need to stabilise the hillside and rebuild the road between Jackfield tile museum and Maws craft centre; and we need to complete the ground investigations in central Ironbridge, reconstruct the riverside wall along the Wharfage, stabilise Lloyds Coppice and carry out work to stabilise the Lloyds phase 3.
	That is a significant amount of work. The key issue is that, when a national Government put a site forward for world heritage site status, they accept that the UNESCO charter requires them, as the state party, to ensure that the site is preserved for future generations. It is crucial that we invest in the Ironbridge gorge. It is a significant asset for the nation, and an iconic site that ranks alongside all the other incredible world heritage sites around the globe. I hope that Ministers will look closely at the partnership work being undertaken to secure the gorge's long-term future as a national asset.
	Finally, I want to say something about the importance of manufacturing for the west midlands. I am delighted that Advantage West Midlands has published its manufacturing support strategy for the next three years. It is an excellent document and it outlines how important manufacturing is for the area. Manufacturing is the largest wealth generator of the west midlands sector, accounting for about 27 per cent. of the regional gross value added—23 per cent. directly and an estimated further 4 per cent. from its supply chains.
	During the early 1980s, when I left school—some Opposition Members will find that comment somewhat surprising—unemployment in Telford was running at just under 10 per cent. I am very proud to say that we have ensured that unemployment has come down over the past few years—it is now running at about 3 per cent.—but to give credit where it is due, one of the most important initiatives in Telford was undertaken by a partnership between a Conservative Government and a Labour council: the designation of the enterprise zone. That extremely important initiative secured cross-party support at the time, and it did a lot for Telford. We also secured the connection to the motorway network, with the opening of the M54.
	Those two decisions in the 1980s were very important for Telford, and they were taken in the long-term interests of the town. I should like to thank the politicians that were involved for making those decisions, because they ensured that, in the long term, we were able to grow the manufacturing sector in Telford and draw new companies into Telford. In fact, we were a focal point for Japanese investment for many years. Indeed, we still have a large number of Japanese companies, such as Ricoh and Maxell, in the town, providing thousands of jobs.
	We now need to continue to support the manufacturing sector in the region. Such manufacturing will be connected particularly to car manufacture and engineering, but increasingly, in Telford, we are looking at high-tech jobs and innovation. That is why I very much welcome the commitment in the recently published document to the technology corridor between Wolverhampton and Telford. It is crucial that we ensure that we have jobs growth along that M54 corridor and that organisations, such as the university of Wolverhampton, are party to supporting manufacturing, so that we can grow new technology and innovation business and build the skills base in Telford.
	Supporting the concept of the city region—the idea is to connect some of the main areas across the central spine of the west midlands into a city region structure—will be crucial. Some clarion voices locally in Telford have suggested that we should not get involved in the city region. In my view, that would be a complete disaster. In the longer term, resources to support manufacturing, the skills sector and training will be decided by organisations such as the city region.
	I fully support the Conservative council's decision to continue to subscribe to the city region—a policy that was started by the Labour council before last year's elections and continued by the Conservative council. I very much welcome that, and I urge the council to continue to ignore some of the clarion voices and the doom merchants who suggest that we should withdraw from the city region. It is important that we invest in it and that our skills and manufacturing strategy develops on a regional basis. On that note, I will go off in search of Easter eggs.

Simon Hughes: A belated happy Easter to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, from me, too.
	I start with a word about the date of the Adjournment and the recess. Unusually, this year, the nation is slightly confused by these things, because the good old western Christian Church, which fixes its Easter according to certain risings of the sun, I think, and the moon, has had its earliest Easter for about 80 or 90 years—I gather that it will not be as early again for another 80 or 90 years. This year, Easter was on 23 March, and technically, it could only have been one day earlier than that. Obviously, it almost coincided with the first day of spring this year. I notice just in passing that, in 2011, it will be on 24 April, which must be pretty well the latest date that it can ever be, too.
	I have no objection about the fact that Easter moves around—it adds a bit of variety and interest in an otherwise over-routine world—but there is an issue that affects our conducting business well. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), who helps me on House matters and directly shadows the Deputy Leader of the House, would have been here, except that he is not here, by permission, for a very good reason: his children are on their school holidays, and he and his wife have decided to take their children, who are in London today as opposed to Scotland, to see "The Lord of the Rings". There is an issue for Members and children with regard to the coincidence of our sitting times with school holidays. That is not an easy issue to resolve. Clearly, there should be a break at Christmas, at or around Easter and in the summer, but when we plan our recesses, I would be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House were to ask her officials to try to make our terms coincide with the bulk of school term times and holidays around the country. We are catering for four countries, which have different education systems.
	When I asked my hon. Friend to give me an idea of the school holidays in Scotland, he told me that some Easter holidays—for example, in Edinburgh and Aberdeenshire—started on 21 March and run until 7 April. The Glasgow ones do not start until 7 April and run until 18 April. The Dundee ones started on 31 March and run until 11 April. When I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) what the position was in Wales, he pointed out that there is a common view that the holidays run from 21 March to 7 April, but the summer holidays vary. Of course, some Scottish summer holidays start as early as the end of June and run until the middle of August. Obviously, this would need the consensus of the House, but I would be grateful if the Leader of the House were to get officials to draw up a matrix of school holiday plans—they vary, but they can generally be foreshadowed—to try to ensure that our term times match, as far as possible, school term times and holidays.
	If we are trying to make the House family-friendly—colleagues have school-age children—we need to ensure, as far as possible, that our term times and holidays coincide with the maximum number of school term times and holidays. I think that that is a reasonable request, and it has been made by colleagues over the years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) has made it often, and he was concerned about the issue when he had young children, as many colleagues have. I hope that we can plan to ensure that we do our job for our families as well as for our constituents.

Simon Burns: I shall not seek to detain the House for long, but I want to raise two important constituency issues that my constituents feel should be brought to the House's attention before we go into recess. We have already heard during today's debate about sub-post offices, but the first issue that I want to raise concerns Chelmsford Crown post office.
	Until last summer, Chelmsford Crown post office was an extremely fine institution on the ground floor of a stand-alone building close to disabled car parking and accessible to shoppers in the centre of Chelmsford. Solely as a penny-pinching, cost-saving exercise, the Post Office decided to close down that post office and to move it to the first floor of WH Smith in Chelmsford High street. That is not a problem inasmuch as the location is still in the centre of the town with easy access from the outside of the building, but the problems begin on the inside, because as always with such deals the services are on the first floor. No retailer will give up its prime ground floor site where people enter the shop from the street to buy its products. The important issue is whether there is good and proper access to the first floor for members of the public—particularly those in wheelchairs, the frail and those with disabilities. As far as the Chelmsford Crown post office in WH Smith is concerned, the short answer is that there is not.
	Before this happened, I warned the Post Office that there would be problems, but my warnings were brushed aside. Unfortunately, the Crown post office has been in WH Smith for six or seven months and, sadly, my fears have been fully realised. There is a staircase to the first floor and one escalator; there is not an up escalator and a down escalator, so that is a problem. However, the Post Office says that that is not a problem because there is a lift. Indeed there is: it is small, so if people in wheelchairs want to use it, queues form. Inevitably, the lift breaks down. It did recently, and that caused tremendous problems. In the past seven months, people—certainly on one occasion—have had to be carried down by paramedics to get from the first floor out of the building. It is unforgivable that such a service is being provided in exchange for the first-class service that we received when we had our own stand-alone post office.
	There is another problem. People can get in through the WH Smith high street entrance from the same level, although if they are going to the Post Office they then have to use the escalator, go up the stairs or, if they can, get into the lift. However, the only way to come in through the other entrance—in the London road, where all the buses stop—is down four very steep steps. There is no access for wheelchairs, so wheelchair users have to go all the way round to the other entrance. For those with non-motorised wheelchairs, that is a long distance. That is unacceptable.
	My constituent Mrs. Gower was so incensed by the issue that in a relatively short period she started a petition that got more than 600 aggrieved—and mostly, but not exclusively, elderly—people to complain and try to pressure the Post Office into doing something about the situation. The best solution would be to go back to the status quo of a year ago. I fear, however, that that is not a viable option; the Post Office has made the move and is saving money. It does not seem that concerned about the quality of the service that it provides its customers, because people have to buy stamps and take their parcels, so they are, up to a point, a captive audience. That is particularly true because in previous waves in the past five years—although not this wave—the company closed many of the sub-post offices in the surrounding area, saying that the Crown post office could become people's sub-post office. Despite the lip service that it pays to the interests of its customers, the Post Office is not desperately concerned; otherwise it would not have moved the Crown post office to that unsuitable site and it would certainly have done something about access to it.
	Something has to be done; the situation cannot carry on in this way. I have presented the petition to the head of the Post Office and I have been told that the regional manager of WH Smith will visit shortly to have a look at the situation. That is good of him; I am grateful, and I hope that he does visit. However, I also hope that he realises the problems and comes up with concrete ideas to overcome them. One such idea would be to put a proper access way at the London road entrance so that wheelchair users, the frail and those with mobility problems would be able to use the entrance. Many of them use buses to come into town and the buses stop immediately outside the entrance.
	The second issue is that when people finally get upstairs, there are queues before they can get served. It would be sensible if there was a counter on the ground floor for the elderly and those with disabilities or mobility problems. That would save them having to go upstairs in the first place. I suspect that that is pie in the sky, because WH Smith does not want to impinge on its ability to make profits. However, if it is going to use its premises as a short-changed way of providing a Crown post office, perhaps it could sacrifice a little bit of space to help its customers.
	I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will not only pass on my comments to the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform but ask him or one of his junior Ministers to have a word with the Post Office to see whether something positive can be done in the near future to alleviate the problem.

Simon Burns: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—that does contribute to the cynicism. Of course, some extremely honourable Members on the Labour Benches actually stuck to their principles by putting their vote where their mouth was and joining Conservative Members in supporting that amendment. It is incomprehensible to me, as someone who is as honest as the day is long, that someone can say one thing to their constituents outside this place, then come here and, at the behest of Government Whips, do something else in the Division Lobby. I find that slightly uncharacteristic of Labour MPs. It is the hallmark of Liberal Democrats every day of the week. We are used to it from them, because they, unlike us and Labour Members, also have the knack of being able to walk down a street, knock on 30 doors and, if they think they are going to win a vote, give 30 different answers to the same question that is asked of them. But c'est la vie—that is what old warhorses in the Conservative and Labour parties have come to expect from the Liberal Democrats. That is why I am surprised that in the vote on post offices only about 30 Labour Members of Parliament abided by what they were telling their constituents and joined us in the Division Lobby. However, that is on their consciences, and I am sure that the truth will out.
	It was interesting listening to the earlier part of the speech by the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright), who regaled the House with his problems with a sub-post office facing closure. He, of course, did not join my hon. Friends in the Division Lobby in the post office vote. Perhaps he was convinced by the arguments of the junior Minister who wound up for his party at the end of the debate, although having listened to that speech I would be slightly surprised if that were the case. I think that the hon. Gentleman might have been more convinced by the fact that he is Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Greater love hath no man for his job on the way up the greasy pole, in the hope that perhaps by the time the election comes in two years this will all be long since forgotten and he will survive. I suspect that constituents not only in his constituency but in Liberal Democrat constituencies have longer memories and get perplexed when they are told one thing in their local papers and then see their Members of Parliament doing another thing here.
	However, I must not be diverted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I wish to raise another important issue—the A12 road that runs through the spine of Chelmsford and Essex up into Suffolk and beyond, just into Norfolk. It is one of the main feeder roads into the east of England and East Anglia. It serves not only the county of Essex, but the ports at Harwich and Felixstowe. The serious problem is that this road is old and constantly having to be repaired and, sadly, because of the increase in traffic—some of it domestic vehicles and a lot of it business generated by the ports—it is becoming too congested to be viable as a through road and a main road into one of the most important regions of this country.
	I am pleased to see that Essex county council has spent the last six months making significant changes to the entrance and exit from the M25 on to the A12, which, although it has been open only for a few weeks, has made a significant improvement. If one goes from that point to my constituency of West Chelmsford, which means travelling 13 miles of road, one will see that about half of it is made up of three lanes, and the other half, two lanes. Beyond that, on the way to Colchester and Ipswich, the road constantly changes from two lanes to three lanes, which enhances the congestion problems.
	Another problem is that investment is needed to improve the road to make it one worthy for the demands made of it, and to enhance it for domestic and business travellers in the region, and to and from the region and its ports. There was a crackpot idea some years ago, in the early 1990s, when the then Government suddenly unveiled in one of their White Papers on road building that they proposed to build a brand new motorway known as the M12 from a point off the M25 right up to Chelmsford, going west of the existing A12. That came as a considerable surprise to most people because no one had been calling for a new motorway. I thought that it was particularly noble of the then Secretary of State for Transport to come up with the idea, because the road passed within about 200 yd of the garden of his house, which seemed rather extreme to me. Fortunately, though, cooler and saner heads prevailed and the then Government abandoned that cockeyed scheme. It has not been resurrected, even though when the current Government were carrying out inquiries and investigations on how to improve the road situation around Ipswich and the knock-on effect down the A12, it was looked at. Rightfully and thankfully, however, it was dismissed as a non-starter.
	We do not need a brand-new road. There is a simple solution to the existing problem, which is to invest in the infrastructure by upgrading the existing A12 in order that all the stretches of only two lanes have three lanes. That will cater for traffic and reduce congestion problems, costs for industry and the road safety problems that result from the bottlenecks. I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), about the matter on 4 March, and I was pleased to find that he shares my view that the road is of national importance and that it needs a major upgrade.
	That view is shared, interestingly enough, by the Minister for the East of England; it is nice to know that she has a view on the issue. It would be quite nice if she popped into Essex at some point as she is the Minister for the East of England, and no doubt, at some point, she will. She has had that job since the beginning of July, and she has not yet stepped into the county council area of Essex, which is the county with the largest population in the region for which she is the Minister. We look forward to welcoming her to Essex at some point when, in the course of her busy duties in the east of England, she can find time to visit us. She, too, believes that the road is important and needs improving and enhancing.
	When comments are made quickly at Question Time, the full horror of what is being said does not always sink in. However, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport said that
	"it is up to the hon. Gentleman and others to try to persuade the regional transport board for the east of England that it should prioritise that work... It is for the transport board to look at the priorities and make its recommendations to the Government."—[ Official Report, 4 March 2008; Vol. 472, c.1584.]
	When one reads between the lines and finds the other side of the story, it is clear that the regional funding allocation for the east of England is not sufficient to meet the needs of the region. That surprises no Conservative Members, because we have been complaining for many years about the way in which the Government spread their allocation of funding around the country. There are not that many Labour councils or Members of Parliament in the east of England, so as with other distributions of moneys, we do not do as well as the Labour heartlands.
	A letter from Essex county council states that
	"the Regional Funding Allocation... is not sufficient to meet the needs of the Region. For example, the A120 proposed improvement alone is expected to cost in the region of £400 million, which is almost half the total available for the Region's transport budget for the period to 2016. If one adds approximately £600 million for the A12 upgrade, and it could be much more, then it is obvious that unless funding is significantly increased the A12 will again fail to be funded under the RFA."
	What is badly needed now will become a pipe dream and we will have to wait many years for its realisation.
	Given that Ministers recognise the importance of the road and of improvements to it to solve the current problems, which will only get worse as time goes on, it is time the Government were prepared to reconsider and either make realistic allocations of money to the region for its road funding programmes, or make the road a project in its own right, and provide substantial funding so that we can get the work done and improve and enhance one of the main feeder roads into one of the most important regions in the country.

John Randall: The hon. Gentleman is right. One of the things that I find most frustrating in today's world is that the Post Office seems to be cutting its own throat. It should be able to provide the things that people want in more outlets rather than restricting them.
	I was interested to hear the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) about the Crown post office in Chelmsford having already moved into WH Smith. I believe that on 17 April, the Uxbridge Crown post office will move to the local WH Smith. Although I made representations, met representatives of the Post Office and was given various assurances about the services that would be provided to ensure that there would be no difficulties in respect of access and the number of windows open, his experience fills me with dread. I try to be positive—I am not someone who always objects to change for the sake of it—but I have heard about several of my hon. Friends' experiences with these transfers of Crown post offices to WH Smith and I am concerned. I can tell the Post Office and WH Smith that I shall make several wanders down the high street in Uxbridge in the coming weeks to see for myself exactly whether they have lived up to their promises or whether a terminal 5 is taking place in a mini world in Uxbridge. I am concerned about that.
	Another local issue of great concern that is constantly being raised with me is what is these days called "garden grabbing". It occurs when family homes in suburban streets are destroyed or knocked down as developers put up flats, when gardens disappear through infilling and so on. That practice, which is destroying the character of many of our roads and communities, is happening in many areas of my constituency, but it is at its worst in Fairfield road, Uxbridge, where 35 per cent. of the properties have some sort of application lodged or an appeal going on. The poor residents of that road say, "We are going to stick it here, as we have lived here all our lives", but they see another development going up and another being granted on appeal. That is one of the most frustrating things—the local authority understood exactly what the application would mean and therefore rejected it, but it was then granted on appeal.
	One of the problems is that the inspectorate considers the individual planning application rather than looking at the area in a street or a road, which would make a lot of difference. The London borough of Hillingdon planning department is as frustrated as anyone else and it is trying to look at the strategy to see whether it can change it, but it is frustrated at every level.
	I have raised the subject before and the Government must look hard at it. Uxbridge is a pretty present place to be, although it has its problems, but many of the ills of our society emerge as we destroy the fabric of our communities and of community life. If we destroy that community feeling, that will only bring more problems. We have seen that happen elsewhere, and it is about time that such things were regulated in a much fairer and better way. We should put the residents' interests first.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey made a plea about the parliamentary holidays and for us to be able to spend time with our children. I agree that it is incredibly important for all families to spend as much time together as they can. My children's holidays have not on this occasion matched the parliamentary recess, but I was able to spend the weekend away on a rugby tour with my daughter, who is the only girl in the boys' team. It will be her last tour away because once players get past the under-12s, they are not allowed to play mixed rugby any more.
	I want to pay tribute to all sports that get our kids actively involved. I am sure that the hon. Ladies on the Labour Benches will be delighted to hear that I am an advocate of women's sport. That has probably come from having a daughter who is keen on sport. I have seen its benefits. Sports are incredibly important for both boys and girls, especially team sports, because of their fitness levels and also to help them to bond together. Although such activity is mainly for the kids, the parents can find some diversions here and there. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have no idea what goes on on such occasions, but they are very civilised. In fact, it is akin to what goes on in the Opposition Whips Office, as far as I can see.
	As it is the last season for my daughter, I want to thank Ruislip rugby club and those involved with the under-12s, especially the coaches, Mr. Terry Russell, Phil Skelton and Robin Nelson. They have done so much. At least 40 kids turn up on a Sunday morning to play in all weathers, which is a tribute to the coaches.
	I shall be doing my own bit for fitness in the weeks of the recess, as I shall be walking the streets of Hillingdon as a part-time postman for my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) and his ambitions to become London Mayor. All of us who love this great city of ours realise that that gentleman will keep it a great city. I hope that when I return hon. Members will see a slimmer, fitter Member for Uxbridge.
	Finally, I cannot not mention the most pressing issue for most of my constituents, which is the proposed third runway at Heathrow. We had a debate on the subject yesterday during the Liberal Democrats' Opposition time, when I was disappointed that the debate turned into a party political one. It is a very serious matter and people from all parties have views on the subject. I find it particularly sad that on that matter, and incidentally on an inquiry into the war in Iraq, the Liberal Democrats do not seem to like anybody else to agree with them. They seem to think that it is their own particular thing, and they are rather sad if anybody dares to agree with them.  [Laughter.] Liberal Democrat Members laugh, but such things are very serious. When I have spoken to many Liberal Democrat Members at public meetings there has been no difference between us, but they suddenly seem to turn on those of us on the Conservative Benches who share their views when they are in the glare here. I find that particularly worrying. It is a different matter in Westminster Hall, which speaks volumes for that chamber.
	I have been discussing with my hon. Friends some of the things that people do not understand. One of my hon. Friends said to me, "But they're not going to increase flights, are they? I have been told by BAA that it is not going to increase flights—it is just to make the capacity a bit bigger so that there is more space." But 220,000 extra flights a year is, I think, an increase.
	There is another thing that is incredibly important for all Members to understand, which Members who do not live nearby or have not taken a special interest do not realise. When we talk of a third runway, one could almost say, "Well, what are they worried about? It is a bit of tarmac. It's just going to go down the road a bit, it's not really a problem." In fact, there are a couple of Labour wards that I could put a bit of tarmac through quite happily, but it does not work like that. It will not just be a third runway and a sixth terminal; what is proposed is a whole new airport the size of Gatwick being put alongside Heathrow. That is what people do not understand.

Geoffrey Cox: I endorse and echo the good wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) to all Members of the House and to all those who help and service the House. For their patience and kindness, often to a very new Member, I am deeply grateful.
	I do not propose to detain the House for long, but I want to draw attention to a number of matters that deeply affect the constituents whom I have the honour to represent. My constituency is profoundly rural, encompassing a large part of the north Devonshire coast. It contains a number of coastal communities, which are particularly affected by factors such as seasonal work, coastal erosion, outward migration and deprivation. In fact, it is not widely known that Torridge and West Devon contains two of the most deprived wards in England. People are often surprised to learn that—including a Minister whom I and a number of constituents from the town of Bideford met yesterday.
	My constituency includes part of the north Devon coast, and in the south it embraces a large part of Dartmoor. The moor is characterised by hill farming, but it also has a considerable amount of deprivation and rural isolation. Today, I want to speak specifically about the matters that affect people living in its fragile rural communities. I have been aware for some time that people in my constituency feel a sense of helplessness that arises from their belief that they are no longer able to affect the fate, future and destiny of their communities. Increasingly, that power is being removed to a remote and unaccountable quangocracy that includes the regional development agencies and regional assemblies, as well as bodies such as Natural England.
	Although I have no doubt that Natural England is motivated by a genuine sense of the public interest, its decisions do not always seem to be explicable or accountable. Moreover, it does not always consult the people likely to be affected. For example, Natural England has declined to assist people living in the coastal town of Northam, in the northern part of my constituency, who are facing acute problems with erosion in an area known as the Northam burrows. It is a beautiful spot: when the spring breezes tease the flowers from their buds, nowhere is nicer for a refreshing walk.
	The Royal North Devon golf club—one of the old fashioned clubs that sprang up on the sand dunes and grassy banks of our coastline—is situated in the Northam burrows. However, the tide has been advancing relentlessly for some years, and it has begun to erode the pebble ridge that offers protection from the sea's depredations. The pebble ridge is an idiosyncratic feature of the area, and it is a precious and protected site, but only the other day we lost 25 m of it to erosion.
	The people of the communities that I represent cannot understand why the responsible authorities—the district and county councils—do not take the action that their fathers and forefathers took to protect the Northam burrows against coastal erosion. Simply recharging the pebble ridge would afford protection against the oncoming tide and the erosion that it causes. No such action has been taken because Natural England no longer believes that recharging the pebble ridge is the right thing to do, even as an interim measure. Instead, it believes in what is called managed retreat. I do not contest that there are sound reasons for that belief, but managed retreat means that the cycle of tides in that part of the Torridge estuary should be allowed to do its work, and it also means that interim measures are not in the interests of the Northam burrows.
	If Natural England is right, it is vital that its reasoning be communicated to the people who live in the area, because they are the ones who are affected by coastal erosion. Their houses and communities are at risk, as are the precious Northam burrows that they have loved and lived in for decades and centuries. They feel that the policy has been devised at a distance from them and has not been one on which they have been consulted and that, in any event, it lacks the justification and substance that it ought to have.
	There is an additional problem—a problem that, I hope, when I reveal it, will make apparent to hon. Members why the community is so concerned. On the Northam burrows—this is common to many precious and protected sites—many years ago, a landfill site was deemed appropriate. On that landfill site, which closed 40 or 50 years ago—certainly, 30 or 40 years ago—there was placed, pre-war and in the 1940s, a whole range of the odious and the bad. It is believed that there are many tonnes of asbestos of the most dangerous kind, that there may be medical waste and that it is all lying in a vast mound in the middle of the Northam burrows.
	As the tide advances and surmounts the dunes, as it is beginning to do, it is beginning to sweep in and encircle that landfill site. None of us knows what is in the site. We believe that it contains asbestos—we are pretty confident that it does—and we know that it will contain something very unpleasant. As the tide encircles it and begins to erode it, we can only speculate and greet with some fear and trepidation what may be uncovered by the tide.
	There is no doubt that the problem is urgent. There is no doubt that the problem is acute. All agree that it is urgently necessary, since the records of the landfill site were lost by the county council many years ago, that some urgent steps are taken to investigate what lies beneath. Yet month has followed month and year has followed year, but no such investigation has been carried out, while the tide continues to advance, while the pebble ridge continues to recede and be eroded and while the danger increases step by step, nearer and nearer to the communities that I represent.
	So I use this opportunity to raise in the House, I hope, in as clear and compelling a way as I can, the urgent necessity for Devon county council to act now. Those whom I represent believe that, as the tide encircles that landfill site not a catastrophe but certainly a very dangerous situation indeed could arise. The county council has committed itself to move forward with those investigations now for many months, if not years, and those investigations must commence. My constituents cannot understand the delay, and they cannot understand the policy of not recharging the pebble ridge and thus protecting the landfill site from the further inflow of the tide.
	One or other thing must happen, and the delay, inertia and apparent unwillingness of the county council, which I say with no partisan spirit is Liberal Democrat controlled, is something that those whom I represent can no longer countenance, understand or tolerate. I believe and hope that these words will be heeded, as will the cries and pleas of the local communities that I represent. That is the first issue, which illuminates, as I believe, why those whom I represent resent the sense of a quangocracy at a great distance from them not listening to the interests of the fragile rural communities in Torridge and West Devon.
	The future of post offices is, as the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) has mentioned, a critical question that is, even now, bearing on the consciousness of those whom I represent. We are in the middle of the stage of identifying the sub-post office branches for closure. I have never experienced such a process. It is characterised by what I can only describe as a rather sinister sense of intimidation. I have postmasters ringing me quietly in the night, afraid even to speak to their Member of Parliament because of confidentiality clauses and the implied and unspoken suggestion that if they speak to their Member of Parliament, make a fuss or draw their position to public attention, they may lose their compensation. They whisper to me in corners, and they telephone me confidentially. They are anxious and troubled—it is not too much to say that they are afraid.
	When the communities that I represent learn how many and which post offices will be affected, it will cause an outcry. Some of the post offices affected are in the heart of the most vulnerable, distant, remote, isolated and rural communities that I represent. It is well known that Devonshire has the largest county-wide network of roads in the country, some of which are of third-world standard. Even the manager of Stagecoach, the local bus company, has said that many of the roads in Devon—I represent one of the most far-flung regions in Devon—are inaccessible to bus services generally. Villages may have one bus a week, and certainly no more than one a day, yet post offices are to close, and the frail, the elderly, the vulnerable, and those in wheelchairs and electric buggies will have to negotiate their way to the post office on the roads that I have described. As for the weather, hon. Members who are familiar with the rain in Devon may fear and tremble for those people's welfare. They will have to negotiate all those difficulties and adversities to go miles to their nearest post office.
	The network change team—that is the euphemistic description of the team that is wielding the axe, and cutting and closing the post office network in my constituency—says, "Well, we'll provide a van." For people who live on a hill in Dartmoor, it is not a great deal of comfort to be told that for two hours on a wet, windy, bleak or snowy day the Post Office will provide a van. It is a brutal axe to wield on a number of scattered rural communities that are fragile, remote and isolated.
	The closures will hit the most vulnerable hardest. They will tear the heart out of some villages whose only contact with the rest of the world is through their post office or their public house—their public houses are closing at a similar rate to their post offices. The process of post office closures in my constituency is as brutal and as bad for the communities that I represent as any measure that the Government could have permitted. It is characterised by fear, secrecy and want of transparency. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) has told us that it is only right that full disclosure be made in relation to a post office. I agree with him entirely, but when one asks the Post Office, there is immediately a clamming-up and an unwillingness to disclose facts that could furnish information relevant to the submission and information on which the case could be made for a particular post office or number of post offices.
	The system is not fair, and it will not be seen as honest by those whom I represent. That is why I speak—not, I hope, with too much vehemence—on behalf of a currently undisclosed number of people about a programme that will land a particularly heavy series of blows on the community that I represent. We are one of the most deprived constituencies; we have no bus system, and no public transport system that would enable those affected to travel. It is no use saying that the 3-mile access criterion for rural communities refers to distance as the crow flies. We are not crows in Devon; we do not fly; and we have no buses.
	The lady, whom I will not name, to whom I spoke the other day in one of the villages where the post office may close—I cannot name her because that would be to name the post office, and to name the post office would breach confidentiality, which would have consequences—rides in an electric buggy for disabled people. It is 3.9 miles to the nearest post office, if her local post office closes. How is she to get there? There is one bus a day. She would have to remain in the other village all day waiting for the bus, merely to buy a stamp or send a parcel. Or, as the lady told me, with her Union Jack on the little basket on the front of her buggy—the House may have detected that she is indeed a Conservative voter, God bless her—she will set out in her buggy around the winding roads with their pits, holes and divots for the nearest village 3.9 miles away. I fear for her. She means it, and she will try, but is that what the Government want? Are the Government willing to permit an elderly person in a disabled buggy to set out on a 3.9 mile journey through fragile, remote rural isolation on Dartmoor in the wind, the rain and the cold in order to cash her pension or buy a few stamps? I earnestly submit not.
	That is another reason why the rural communities that I represent feel as profoundly as they do that the Government are not interested in the rural south-west and do not govern for them. The Government do not understand the problems of the villages and market towns that I represent. There are so many issues that affect my constituents' interests that I could speak almost until kingdom come, and I can already hear the silent groans of hon. Members at that dismal prospect, so I will not trouble the House much longer. I shall raise only one or two of those issues.

Geoffrey Cox: Do not tempt me.
	I have more than 65 sub-post office branches, which shows why my constituency is said to be the second largest in England and the sixth most rural constituency in the country, including our Scottish cousins. There are so many problems with services that affect rural communities and give rise to the state of mind among them that London, the House and the Government are not listening. Broadband is a minor irritation, it might be thought by the House, but there are dozens of villages in my constituency that cannot receive it. Sometimes parts of villages, and sometimes whole villages, do not have access to broadband.
	The regional development agency has assisted with a little money to enable some exchanges, but I get letters almost weekly about the rural businesses whose interests and prosperity have been frustrated by the simple inability to send an e-mail. I dare say that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) would not recognise the problem. I dare say that people in Uxbridge can at least get broadband, but in Northlew, St. Giles on the Heath or Belstone, or in many parts of those communities, people cannot get broadband at all.
	If we are to encourage rural business and encourage diversification in areas where the traditional staples of agriculture and livestock farming have, sadly, been in decline for so many years, how are we to give those communities the empowerment that they need to take into their own hands their destiny and their fate, unless we can provide them with at least the elementary necessity of a modern business, a modern broadband communication link?
	Just over the border, European money is aflowing and awashing in Cornwall, and it is gurgling around the plughole of public money, which is being squandered in millions and tens of millions. In Devon, however, and particularly in Torridge, there is nothing. We have none of the largesse that is falling like rain and manna upon Cornwall. We have a few bits—a few pennies pushed in our direction—but nothing when it comes to the enablement of my communities to receive the simple and basic necessity of broadband.
	One Labour Member has discussed bus concessions. Even bus concessions in Devon have proved an extraordinary and chaotic nightmare. Hitherto, the county council—

Geoffrey Cox: Yes, a Liberal Democrat council. Nevertheless, I cannot blame the council for everything, and I do not seek to do so. [Hon. Members: "Go on!"] No, no. Perish the thought that I should blame the Liberal Democrats. Speaking for myself, I have always enjoyed the most cordial relationship with the Liberal Democrat county council, and I think that the Liberal Democrats try to do their best—it is not always a good best, but they try to do it.
	The county operated a bus concession scheme that allowed people to travel from 9 o'clock in the morning. Hon. Members might think 9 o'clock is a sensible time to begin, because that is when most of the buses go. They do not go after 9.30, because if people want to leave their villages and get to work, the buses must go before then. Unfortunately, however, the Devonwide partnership, which runs the scheme, felt unable to continue the original scheme, which was local, and introduced a start time of 9.30. That means that the scheme is almost useless for dozens of my villages, which people cannot get out of until after 9.30.
	Why does the scheme now start at 9.30? I will tell hon. Members the reason, which might provide an answer for the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and which is certainly the answer in Devon: the Government have simply not provided enough money. At the moment, the Devonwide partnership does not dare take the step of starting the scheme at 9 o'clock rather than 9.30. Why? Because the Government have done no serious study as to the number of visitors who will arrive in Devon. Those visitors, and the distances involved, would take up much of the Government's money. So, for the first year, the scheme starts at 9.30, not 9, which makes it automatically of little use to thousands of those who will have the card.
	Additionally, it has not been possible to extend the companion for carers scheme to the county. That, too, is a devastating blow to those who are disabled and those with autistic children, which is a subject close to my heart. Their companions will be unable to travel on the buses, because the scheme has not been extended. Having done the maths, the Devonwide partnership simply does not believe that enough money has been provided to fund it.
	The local scheme started at 9 and gave carers the right to accompany the disabled. The new national scheme starts at 9.30 and does not give carers that same right. I submit that that is another reason why hon. Members, were they living in one of the villages or market towns that I represent, would regard this as another meaningless, mysterious, peculiar, baffling decision taken remotely from them that hit hard their quality of life and their confidence that they could survive living in those remote and rural communities.

David Amess: I join other hon. Members in sending my best wishes to the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), who is not currently in her place, on her birthday. Whatever her age, she does not look it. The Deputy Leader of the House smiles; I hope that she will deal with all the points that the hon. Lady made. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) his passionate support for ladies playing sport. Like him I have a daughter who plays sport—mine is a successful female footballer—so I applaud any strategies to encourage ladies to play sport.
	There are 10 points that I wish to raise before the end of this April Adjournment debate. Because of the shortage of time I will rattle through them, but the deputy Leader of the House is very good at ensuring that I receive answers to my points in due course. My first point is about parliamentary questions—a subject that was raised at business questions earlier. The Leader of the House gave an assurance that the practice of Departments referring hon. Members to websites would no longer be seen as satisfactory.
	The reason why I ask a lot of written questions is that I do not always receive answers to my original questions. To give the deputy Leader of the House just one example, last year I asked the Home Secretary about her meetings with Sir Ian Blair. I did not expect her to tell me the detail of every location and so on, but the process of answering that question has been tortuous, and at the end of it all I am still none the wiser. Some Departments are splendid and give good answers, but others are very tardy.
	Now that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has returned to the Chamber, I want to congratulate him on his campaign to improve the A12 network, which, as an Essex MP, I know would certainly benefit my constituents.

David Amess: In the true modest style of an Essex Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend is not taking the credit for the campaign. I join him in congratulating his local newspaper on its campaign.
	Secondly, I am the chairman of the all-party group on inflammatory arthritis. There is a type of arthritis called—I hope that I can pronounce this properly—ankylosing spondylitis, which is a chronic degenerative arthritis of the joints that causes inflammation at the sites where ligaments and tendons attach to the bone. Ankylosing spondylitis is an incredibly painful type of arthritis that is quite difficult to treat and for which there is no known cure. However, there are treatments and medications available to reduce the symptoms and the pain.
	The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recently undertook an evaluation of the latest treatments for adult patients with severe forms of the condition. After considering all the evidence, NICE recommended that the two most cost-effective treatments should be available to patients through the NHS. Those treatments can also be administered by the patient at home instead of in hospital, thereby enabling them to take control of their condition and medication. That is a good decision, supporting a modern NHS.
	However, although its evaluation has been lengthy and thorough, NICE has acknowledged that the appeal hearing against the recommendation, which took place this week, could lead to further delays before guidance is finally issued. I would therefore ask the deputy Leader of the House to have a word with the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), to see whether something can be done to expedite matters.
	My third point concerns people using mobile phones while driving cars. My view on mobile phones was shared by the late and much lamented Eric Forth. I have asked the Department for Transport a series of questions about the number of prosecutions of people using mobile phones. The answer, from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), was very instructive. I am absolutely baffled by the disparity between regions. The legislation was introduced in December 2003, but in some areas no prosecutions or proceedings have ever been instituted, so the law is simply not being enforced throughout the UK. I have lost count of the times I have been stuck behind a lorry whose driver is obviously involved in an interesting phone call and showing no regard for other road users. This is a serious problem, and I hope that we can start to take it a little more seriously than we seem to at the moment.
	Dr. Vini Khurana, an eminent neurosurgeon in Australia, has just produced an interesting paper stating that there is a direct causal link between people using mobile phones and the incidence of brain tumours. Once upon a time, Members used to present petitions about mobile phone masts and similar issues. That all seems to have gone very quiet at the moment, but it has certainly not gone quiet as far as I am concerned.
	I was honoured to be the only UK representative at the recent Taiwanese elections. Compared with what has been going on in Zimbabwe, it was a joy to go to Taiwan and to see people enthusiastically grasping the opportunity to vote in an election. The election was fought rigorously between the KMT and the ruling Democratic Progressive party, and the KMT won, receiving the largest percentage and number of votes in the history of Taiwan. I was also fortunate enough to meet the new President, Ma Ying-jeou, on the evening of his election. I was struck by his warmth and humanity, and by the clear vision that he had for the future of his country, given all the challenges of trying to work with China and of not becoming isolated.
	I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will pass on my thanks to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton). In the Christmas Adjournment debate, I made a plea for money to help to tackle cliff slippage, and she listened to my plea. I was supported in my representations by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge), and we were delighted to receive the extra funding. It is being well used, but I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the House can guess what I am going to say next. Southend needs more money, because there is now further slippage closer to the town centre, so I hope that the hon. Lady will once again be able to work a charm offensive with her right hon. Friend.
	Another issue that hon. Members are trying to deal with at the moment is that of hospital parking charges. I remember clearly when those charges were first introduced. Labour Members who were then in opposition protested about them, but they are now widely accepted. My hospital in Southend is land-locked; there is no room for it to expand. My constituency has a huge number of elderly people. They are not lazy; they need their cars to get to the rheumatology clinic, for example. The parking charges can range from £2 to £4, and that can soon mount up for people visiting a loved one with cancer, for example. The hospital is now building a multi-storey car park, but that is causing further difficulties. Will the Deputy Leader of the House have a word with her ministerial colleagues to see whether they have a view on this matter?
	Another issue that I have raised before in these Adjournment debates concerns a constituent named David Clark. Ten years ago he was working for Essex police as a police officer. He was forced to retire from his job on medical grounds, following bullying and harassment by senior officers. This is too complex a story to develop in just a minute, but it is all to do with whistleblowing. My constituent did a splendid job in his time with the police force. His maltreatment followed his managing an investigation into theft and stolen goods in 1997. He did the right thing and decided to pursue legal action against the chief constable of Essex in July 2006. In the recent High Court hearing, Mr. Justice Tugendhat ruled in my constituent's favour and, nine months on, in June 2007, he received £93,000 in compensation from Essex police force in an out-of-court settlement. What is not acceptable is that the costs of the case—£35,000—have still not been paid, which is putting my constituent under a huge amount of strain.
	During the High Court hearing, the judge condemned the detective sergeant involved as "not capable of belief", and said that he could not be regarded as a "candid witness". He made a number of criticisms of the organisation of the Essex police, which he said was in stark contrast to my constituent, whom he considered to be a "careful and honest witness". Most frustrating of all, my constituent has tried over and over again to arrange a meeting with the chairman of Essex police authority, to absolutely no avail. I find that desperately disappointing.
	The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) raised an issue involving his local driving test centre. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East and I are confronting exactly the same issue, and we are very concerned about it. I will not be disloyal to my former constituency, Basildon. I will simply say that to relocate the entire test centre to Basildon will cause huge problems in Southend, because it means a journey of nearly 14 miles. I strongly support of the efforts of the Southend and District Driving Instructors Association to save the Southend centre.
	The penultimate issue that I wish to raise concerns Mr. and Mrs. Eeles, who came to my surgery recently. The couple, aged 71 and 76, took a one-day coach trip to Belgium to buy cheap tobacco. They acted within the law: they bought 3 kg. The customs officer stopped Mrs. Eeles and detained her—an elderly person—for two hours, confiscating her legal amount of tobacco. That was absolutely crazy. Mrs. Eeles is very upset, and I support her in all the representations that she is currently making.
	Finally, I want to say something about a young lady in my constituency called Felicia Cantone. Last week a local newspaper ran the headline "Felicia loses leg but has just two days off". The story was about a 10-year-old girl who returned to school two days after her leg was amputated. She had to have that horrific operation to prevent the spread of bone cancer—a rare type of cancer called Ewing's sarcoma, which was first diagnosed when she was seven. She is an incredibly brave girl, and she returned to school in two days. Apparently, the operation increased her chance of survival from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent.
	The point that I want to make—and I do not say this is a joke—is that Felicia needs a prosthetic leg, and cannot obtain one from the national health service. I am baffled by the reasons for that, but there are all sorts of problems: for instance, she is very young and is growing quickly. The family are fundraising locally in order to send her to America. It is an extraordinary case. I hope that after I have written to the Deputy Leader of the House with more details, she will ask the Department of Health to consider it.
	I join other Members in wishing everyone a very happy April break.

Stewart Jackson: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). I, too, send birthday greetings to the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac).
	It is a year or so since I had an opportunity to speak in an Adjournment debate. Things have moved on quite well in Peterborough during that time, not least given the prospect that the Posh will be promoted to league division 1 for next season. They are currently top of the league.
	Last September saw the opening of the Thomas Deacon academy, the largest academy in England and Wales. We have had the first tranche of city centre regeneration, and the planning application for the North Westgate development has been submitted to Peterborough city council. The super-hospital is about to enter a new stage of construction, and we hope it will be opened in 2011 or 2012, and we also have other interesting projects connected with the regeneration of Peterborough.
	I shall now briefly raise some key issues. First, I beg the indulgence of the House as I wish to return to the matter of post offices. It is often forgotten that a reduction in the urban network is also a major issue. Under the rather Orwellian-sounding urban reinvention programme, my constituency has lost six post offices in the last six years, reducing the total from 23 to 17, and we fear that when in July the proposals are put out for consultation across Cambridgeshire—and Northamptonshire, I believe—we may lose another six to eight just in the Peterborough constituency. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) is leading the campaign in his constituency against post office closures, and I pay tribute to Sir Peter Brown, the Cambridgeshire cabinet member for communities, who is co-ordinating all the local authorities and other key stakeholders in Cambridgeshire to put the case for keeping those post offices open. That is needed, not least in my constituency; I once described the Crown post office at Cowgate as resembling a Dickensian soup kitchen because it was completely overflowing with people, and the queues can go out on to the street, particularly in the summer. The idea that we can lose another six to eight sub-post offices is barmy.
	Flag Fen is one of the finest bronze age settlements in Europe, but it is desperately short of money. Sadly, its manager, Georgina Butters, recently left because there is insufficient funding. Although it has had some money remitted via English Heritage, there is not sufficient funding to develop both the artefacts and the tourism and leisure side of the site. It would be a great shame if Flag Fen were to be left to close, and its great attractions were to be lost to Cambridgeshire and the country as a whole.
	Members will know of my consistent interest in the issue of the fortification of some foods with folic acid, which is mainly as a result of the fact that the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus is located at Park road in Peterborough. There is an unanswerable case that folic acid helps to reduce massively, if not completely eliminate, neural tube defects and appalling disabilities such as spina bifida and hydrocephalus, which afflict hundreds of families a year and cause hundreds of elective terminations. That can be ameliorated if folic acid is introduced into women's diets before they become pregnant. Last year, the Food Standards Agency cleared the way in making that case, but unfortunately there has been a delay in respect of a ministerial recommendation. I hope Ministers will look very favourably on the huge weight of scientific evidence, because this is about people's lives—it is about the quality of children's and families' lives. It is time that we followed the lead of the United States and 32 other countries across the world, and embraced the fortification of some foods with folic acid.
	Another major health concern in my constituency is chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In Peterborough, about 2,700 people suffer from the condition; it is the fifth biggest killer in the United Kingdom, and the people in my primary care trust area are 10 per cent more at risk of hospital admission than those elsewhere in the UK—indeed, it is described as a COPD hot spot in the east of England. I was recently privileged to attend and speak at an event at the Thomas Walker medical centre in Huntly grove: a British Lung Foundation reception and launch for its "Breathe Easy" campaign. It is important that Government understand how important this issue is. We do not know why the condition particularly affects Peterborough. Long ago, Peterborough moved on from being a large industrial engineering city and a railway city, but agricultural materials are burnt in the area, and agriculture, food processing and packaging takes place across the area. The combination of those things might mean that our area is particularly afflicted by that condition, and, indeed, by asthma, which is also a significant problem. The last figures showed that my local Peterborough primary care trust was ranked 32nd highest for asthma admissions out of 300 trusts nationwide.
	The final health issue that I wish to discuss is teenage pregnancy, which is a major problem. It is a badge of dishonour that my constituency and the city of Peterborough is the teenage pregnancy capital of the east of England, and that, regrettably, the trend in my area is either stable or rising, rather than reducing, as it is in so many other parts of both the east of England and the country as a whole. That is particularly the case given that some 43 per cent. of the 190 young women between the ages of 15 and 17 who fell pregnant in 2006 in my area chose to have an elective abortion—that is a tragedy and social catastrophe. We must do more. We must not just repeat the mantra of sex education and more access to contraception. Although it may be unfashionable, there must be a moral aspect to this issue, and girls and young women should be given different paths to go along. This is not just about sex education.
	The main substance of my remarks will not be about that issue, but about the report produced earlier this week by the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs entitled "The Economic Impact of Immigration". It is timely that we debate that report, albeit during the debate on the April adjournment. I hope that Ministers will find Government time in the next Session to debate the issue, because I believe that unfettered, unrestricted and uncontrolled immigration has, in many respects, been a social disaster for this country in terms of social cohesion, community relations and the economic situation in many towns and cities, particularly in the east of England.
	Immigration has had a massive impact in a small number of areas, not only Peterborough, but Breckland, King's Lynn, Boston and other parts of both the east of England and the rest of the country. It has had a big impact on the delivery of housing and health services—indeed, I was advised only today of a big increase in tuberculosis in the Peterborough city council area. That is just one of the side effects of large-scale, unfettered immigration. It also has an impact in respect of policing, the issue of people trafficking and the sex trade, adult social care and, in particular, education.
	The issue that I would like to discuss most is the entrenching of welfare dependency, particularly in the host community. Who would have believed that a Labour Government would have allowed such uncontrolled immigration as to leave us nationally with a situation where 5.2 million people are on benefits, where we have to recruit low-skill, low-wage people to do jobs that our own people should be doing and where we tolerate slum housing, low wages and poor working conditions because we are told spuriously the Government's bogus argument, advanced by the Minister for Borders and Immigration, the Home Secretary and others, that immigration has produced benefits to the value of £6 billion a year? That argument has been conclusively demolished by the report produced earlier this week. I feel vindicated by that cross-party report, which has been produced by experts and has rubbished the Government's campaign of misinformation on unprecedented and uncontrolled immigration. Sadly, it is five years too late. I feel that I have ploughed a lonely furrow on this issue. If one ever mentioned the subject hitherto, one was inevitably accused of racism even though it is incumbent on every Member to judge the situation in their constituency and to speak up for their constituents, irrespective of their race, religion, creed or colour. I have done that.
	I have never taken the view that immigration per se is a bad thing—I believe that controlled immigration is a good thing. Such massive economic and social change has come at a high price, with a massive strain on community resources, the delivery of public services, resentment between communities irrespective of racial group and, in particular, the embedding of a low-wage, low-skill economy and the pricing out of many people onto jobseeker's allowance and other benefits.
	If we consider the situation in Peterborough over the past few years, we see that the number of those on active jobseeker's allowance rose from 1,640 to 2,280 between 2001 and 2007. The median gross weekly rate wages have declined from £447.10 to £421.90 over the past two years. The number of NEETs—those not in employment, education or training—has risen. In fact, there was no change overall in the five years between 2002 and 2007. Some 4,500 people in Peterborough have been on benefits for more than five years.
	Did no one think that this would happen? When the Government told us that between 8,000 and 15,000 people would come from the European Union countries in 2004, did they consider what the impact would be on a constituency such as mine? In my constituency, 49 per cent. of pupils achieve five GCSE grades from A to E, the lowest in the east of England. We have the third lowest proportion of adults with degree-level qualifications and the third highest with no qualifications. We have 10 super output areas of the most deprived 5 per cent. of the region. One in 14 of my constituents is on incapacity benefit and 24 per cent. of jobseeker's allowance claimants are in the 16 to 24 age group. Self-employment levels are low and the resident earning figures reduced over the past few years.
	We were told that mass immigration was a panacea, and the Government told us that it was a "good thing". There was no proper methodology or analysis and no economic study was undertaken to see the impact on a low-skilled, low-waged, low-educational attainment constituency such as mine, which is moving from a heavy industry, railway-focused economy to a more service-based economy.
	It could be said that Peterborough is the victim of its geographical circumstances. It is on the A1 and the A47. It is a transport hub and naturally the sort of place where businesses would consider developing the service industry, the food processing and packaging industry, transportation and logistics. It is at the centre of a rural area near south Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire and the rest of Cambridgeshire. However, no thought was given to the impact of 20,000 EU migrants coming to the city and what would happen to primary care, primary schools, transportation, policing and other services.
	It has been lonely to put this case. It has not always been fashionable to make the arguments that I have made today. I have held two Adjournment debates on the subject over the past two years, one last June and one the year before that. I feel vindicated by the report. I feel that I have done my duty to my constituents. I welcome those who want to make a better life for themselves and their families and contribute to my community, but the Government have failed dismally in their responsibility to have regard to social and community cohesion, a good balance and proper controlled migration. When I talk to my constituents I find that when the election comes, this Government will be driven from office.

Peter Lilley: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson). I shall allude to some of the issues that he raised, because I share some of his concerns and views.
	First, I want to raise some issues affecting my constituency that have the common theme of housing. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who was hoping that I would launch straight into cannabis, in which case he would have stayed, now knows that he is free to depart, unless he wants to stay for quite a long time.
	I turn first to the provision of accommodation for Travellers and Gypsies in my constituency. Like everybody else, they need homes, and we have to provide accommodation for them somewhere in the eastern area. Following the lead of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Anne Main), I raised the matter in a debate in the House, and I wish to return to it because we did not get a satisfactory answer about two things from the Minister who responded. The first was why such a high rate of growth of the population of Travellers in the eastern areas is assumed. Why is it assumed that the Traveller population is increasing more rapidly than the population of Africa, which has the highest growth rate otherwise known in the world? Why is such a large growth rate built into demands for provision that are being imposed on local authorities?
	Secondly, we want to know the rationale behind the policy of requiring the local authorities that already have the highest number of sites for Travellers to provide the highest number of additional sites. People in the part of my constituency that falls within the St. Albans area are particularly incensed, because St. Albans already has by far the largest number of sites for Travellers in Hertfordshire, yet it is being required to provide nearly twice as many as most other local authorities, and the highest number in Hertfordshire. Surely that is not fair. I hope that the Government will require the Government office for the east of England to think again and advise the East of England regional assembly likewise that it should not follow such a policy. It puts a blight on my constituency, because so many sites have to be considered. The sooner the whole matter is resolved, the better it will be for everybody, Travellers and settled population alike.
	The settled population—the vast majority of our constituents—also need homes. In Hertfordshire, we have in the past met the targets for building new homes for the existing population, and we have done so without building on the green belt in my constituency. That is becoming increasingly difficult, because the targets imposed on us have been raised, raised and raised again.
	North Hertfordshire district council now has to provide an additional 15,000 homes. The Government have already given permission for the building of an initial 3,600 homes west of Stevenage—the largest incursion on the green belt that has ever been known—yet that additional demand has been put upon us. My constituents are worried, because in seeking sites for that large number of homes, the local authority has to consider an even larger number of potential options. So, large areas of the constituency are being examined as potential areas although—thank heavens!—not all will be selected to meet that target.
	That problem has caused concern, disturbance, anger and resentment, but those emotions are nothing compared with the outrage that has greeted the discovery—the exposure—that officials from the Department for Communities and Local Government have had meetings with their counterparts in Luton borough council, South Bedfordshire district council and Bedfordshire council, as well as with representatives of the developers, Blore Homes, to consider building homes in the North Hertfordshire district council area of my constituency. Moreover, they met without informing or inviting officials or councillors from North Hertfordshire district council or Hertfordshire county council, and they did not let me know that the meetings were taking place.
	In other words, the DCLG considers that it can meet its targets by building in our district, on the beautiful stretch of land between Luton and the ill-named but extremely lovely part of my constituency known as Lilley Bottom. That name has nothing to do with me, although it may possibly have something to do with my ancestors. I wrote to the Minister for Housing a couple of weeks ago, as soon as I learned what had been going on. I wanted to know why Government officials had met developers and local authority staff to consider building in my constituency without letting my local authority or me know. So far, I have had no reply.
	The Deputy Leader of the House will respond to the debate. Although she will probably not be able to explain why I have received no reply, or give me the answer that I need, I hope that she will make sure—post haste—that her colleague replies to me. The anger in my constituency will only be compounded if Ministers fail to tell us about what is going on, or to apologise for what has gone on so far.
	Why do so many homes need to be built? Why have the targets been raised? Sixty per cent. of the additional homes that we need are simply the result of the existing population living in smaller households. That happens because people are leaving home earlier and living longer, and also—sadly—because families split up. The average household size declines each year, with the result that a county such as Hertfordshire—or anywhere else—needs roughly 0.5 per cent. more houses each year. That accounts for the 60 per cent. of additional homes to which I have referred. However, those additional homes will require little extra infrastructure. We will not need more schools or hospitals, and probably no more roads, electricity or water. We need that extra infrastructure only when there is an increase in total population, and that is exactly what is happening in this country.
	The excellent report from the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee highlighted the fact that net immigration into this country is causing a substantial increase in population. Based on the Government Actuary's projection, I calculate that our net population will increase by 190,000 a year through net immigration—and, of course, we must not forget those people's offspring. Indeed, nearly 40 per cent. of the new households that we need in this country will be the result of the policy of allowing immigration to exceed by so much the number of people returning home or emigrating.
	The Economic Affairs Committee report also said that two thirds of the new households in Greater London are the result of net immigration. Although there is remarkably little direct immigration into Hertfordshire, we see its consequences. People of all ethnicities move out of London into the county and, individually, they are welcomed—after all, many of the people in Hertfordshire came from London originally. However, the net inflow into London has also produced a huge net outflow. Much of it has been into Hertfordshire, and that is what has created the problems that I have described.
	We have had 17 statements about housing demand and supply in the 25 years that I have been a Member of Parliament—no, 17 statements in the 10 years that the Government have been in power—not one of which has mentioned net immigration as a cause of the extra demand and the need for extra supply. So, the Government have been trying to obscure what is going on.
	Personally, I have always taken the view that most immigrants are not, as they are often caricatured, scroungers, criminals or welfare-dependent. They are hard-working, law-abiding, decent people who want to come to this country to work hard for the benefit of themselves and their families and to make a contribution to society, but they need homes. It would be monstrous to allow people to come to this country and then not to provide the additional homes that they will need in due course. I want to highlight the hypocrisy of parties that encourage immigration and oppose restrictions on immigration but then campaign against the need to build additional houses whenever and wherever it occurs. I hope that the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) is listening to my remarks, because he has said in the past that one way in which he diverges from me and cannot understand me is on my desire to place a restriction on immigration to this country.

Hon. Members: He has just come in!

Peter Lilley: There seems to be a general view that I should not give way, because the hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber for long, and I think I have been speaking for too long. Equal weight should be given to both points, and I shall endeavour to move on.
	I therefore concluded that we ought to try to make the post offices as low cost as the banks in delivering cash, and I introduced a computerisation programme that was designed to achieve that. For a year or two after the Labour Government came to power, we were told that that was going according to budget and plan, but then they suddenly announced that it was not, cancelled it, pocketed what they thought was the saving and found themselves going down exactly the route that I predicted. That is why we are in this position now.
	I do not know whether it is possible to go into reverse at this stage and find some way to reduce the costs of delivering benefits and pensions through the post offices, but if we could do that we would undoubtedly increase their viability no end and avoid the needs for subsidies and for so many closures. However, we ought to put the blame where it is due, which is on Ministers who adopted the policy against the advice of their officials. I have constantly asked Ministers to acknowledge that they were told that that would be the consequence, but they have refused either to admit it or to deny it—I am sure that they would have denied it, if they had been able to. They have deliberately created the situation in which we find ourselves, and they cannot escape the blame for that.
	I hope that the Members of Parliament who are gathering on both sides of the House to hear my closing remarks have an excellent recess and use it to read not only the two pamphlets that I wrote, which I mentioned earlier, but, probably even more importantly, the House of Lords report on an issue that is one of the most important to our constituents. Indeed, according to all the opinion polls, it is now considered among the most important issues by our constituents, for the obvious reason that they can see what is going on and do not need the Lords report to point it out in the way in which we experts do. I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a very happy recess.

Shailesh Vara: I, too, thank all those who have taken part in this afternoon's debate. We have heard a number of excellent speeches, ranging in content from local constituency matters to national issues. We have also covered some international matters.
	The hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) began proceedings with a detailed speech. The House will share his concerns about the fact that many blind people do not have access to television, despite the fact that technological advances mean that they can partake of it. I have to say that the arguments he made in attempting to claim that he did not really vote for post office closures when we all know that he did were disingenuous to say the least.
	The point was aptly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) when he said that such behaviour contributes to the cynicism about all those who work here and does not help our cause in trying to establish that we are a reputable profession and people who are trying to do the best for their constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) rightly pointed out that the fact that the hon. Member for Telford happens to be Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury may have had something to do with his about-turn, by which I suspect his constituents will not be convinced.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) spent the first seven minutes of his speech talking about matters to do with the fact that the recess does not match the school holidays. He seemed to be under the impression that the debate was a continuation of this morning's business questions. I have to take issue with his point about long summer holidays. He may be taking a long summer holiday between July and October, but the majority of his colleagues in the House will be doing constituency work. I have sympathy with Mehdi Kazemi, the Iranian gentleman whom he mentioned, and I hope very much that the Deputy Leader of the House will have taken on board the concerns that were raised.
	The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) said that this debate was an opportunity for Members of Parliament to speak about constituency matters and get things off their chest, and for his sake I hope that he was able to do both those things and that he feels a lot better for it. He touched on the issue of Iraq, and I hope again that those points were noted, and he also spoke of the funding for a walk-in medical centre in his constituency, arguments that were well put, and I am sure that his constituents will feel well served by him in today's debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) gave a typically forceful speech, and I have every sympathy with his arguments on Chelmsford Crown post office. He rightly put into perspective the difficulties now experienced by people who visit the post office compared with when it was in a stand-alone building. He said that that was unacceptable, and I agree and wish him well in trying to resolve the difficulty that his constituents face. I also agree that the Government should review their road-funding programme.
	I take this opportunity to wish the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) a very happy birthday—a day which I hope was made all the happier by her speech of great diligence. Her constituents will have noted that she has aired their concerns about the inconsistencies in bus travel passes, and I am sure that they will be grateful to her for having put on the record the blip in the historical records of the connection between Immingham and the Pilgrim Fathers.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) gave a typically wise and thoughtful speech, with a touch of humour thrown in for good measure. He rightly also talked of post offices and mentioned the elderly and vulnerable people who will be particularly affected by their closure, and also referred to their being a useful community resource for those who use and live around them.
	I endorse wholeheartedly my hon. Friend's point about encouraging more sport for ladies. Women have enormous talent in this area, and it is not being nurtured as well as it could be. We should look to ensure that sponsors of sport take note of the comments made in today's debate and give good consideration to making sure that we have more female sports on television. At this point, I should say that we need more role models, such as Charlotte Edwards, the captain of the England ladies' cricket team. It is my privilege to have her as a resident in my constituency. As my local newspaper  The Hunts Post said, she is
	"one of the most influential female England cricketers of all time."
	Long may she continue to be successful, having clinched the Ashes for England in February 2008.
	My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox) gave a masterful and eloquent performance, and I very much hope that Devon county council will deal with the problem of the tide encircling the landfill site, the consequences of which will be dangerous for the local community. I hope also that he will have some joy in trying to get broadband for the residents of St. Giles on the Heath and some other villages. It is a problem that those Members with a rural element to their constituencies understand all too well.
	The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) gave a measured speech, and I hope that his plea to have more access to motorcycle test centres has been heard by the Deputy Leader of the House, and that she will pass the message on to the relevant Minister. The House will have noted his welcome to the new grocery supply code of practice and his urging that it be put in place as soon as possible.
	The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Davies) made a wide-ranging speech, and the House will have noted the economic circumstances of his constituency, including the issues concerning drug misuse. We cannot fail to have noticed his observation that the police have to double up to do social work. Their position is not in any way assisted by the fact that they also have mountains and mountains of paperwork to add to their workload.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) made a broad speech that covered a number of issues. I suspect like many Members, I agree entirely with him that the answers that Ministers provide are often very inadequate and that there is a discrepancy between different Departments in respect of the efficiency with which questions are answered. Many of us share that concern. The House will have been staggered by the revelation that Felicia Cantone, the brave 10-year-old girl in his constituency, cannot get a prosthetic leg because she is deemed to be too young.

Helen Goodman: It is a great pleasure to take part in this April Adjournment debate. As always, it is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara).
	I want to begin by commenting on the remarks that have been made about post offices. That issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright), the hon. Members for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) and for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson), the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox) and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley).
	I do understand that the proposed closure of post offices is a real problem in many communities because 12 of the 48 post offices in my constituency are proposed for closure. The Government recognise the social and economic benefits of the post office network; that is why they are spending £1.7 billion on subsidising the Post Office. As all hon. Members must acknowledge, that is a large sum and it should be possible for the Post Office to support a proper network with it.
	Hon. Members said that they were frustrated by the quality of the consultations. I remind them that, until now, between 10 and 15 per cent. of the proposals have been changed as a result of representations. That emphasises the importance of hon. Members taking part in these consultations and encouraging their constituents to do so. Earlier today, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House promised to take back to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform the request to share information about individual post offices and their commercial strategies, along with all hon. Members' remarks, which we will submit to the Minister responsible.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Telford spoke about audio-description in his excellent speech. I do not know whether he is aware that the Communications Act 2003 sets minimum targets for audio-description, and it is the responsibility of Ofcom to ensure that they are met. He also spoke about Ironbridge, the world heritage site. I can remember visiting that as a child and seeing a coracle, which only goes to show that I am much older than he is. I understand that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and regional Ministers have set up a group that is looking into how to protect Ironbridge. He also spoke about manufacturing in the west midlands and the importance of inward investment in creating new jobs.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey rightly spoke about the importance of the timing of recesses. I will undertake to update the work that we have done on that by reviewing which local authorities hon. Members send their children to school in so that next year we can take that into account when we set the timetable.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke about an important site in his constituency and the importance of getting a sensitive development there. He went on to talk about the case of Mr. Mehdi Kazemi, an Iranian. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of this, but the Home Secretary has agreed that that case should be considered in the light of representations that were made by the House of Lords, because every case must of course be considered on its individual merits, and people's human rights must be taken into account when decisions are taken. That is the policy that the Home Office follows. The hon. Gentleman also talked about electoral under-registration, which is, as he knows, very significant. I will forward those remarks to the Ministry of Justice.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) spoke about the costs of the Iraq war. He cited an extraordinary figure, which I have checked. The Government estimate that by the end of 2006-07 the conflict will in fact have cost the British taxpayer some £5.5 billion, which is considerably below his figure. He raised the reasonable point that we should have more discussion before sums of money are committed to. I know that the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury have discussed improving the scrutiny of estimates. In addition, next year we will have a debate when the spending announcement is made in recognition of the significance of this issue. My hon. Friend also talked about the decisions of Norfolk primary care trust with regard to walk-in services, and I hope that he will take part in that consultation.
	The hon. Member for West Chelmsford spoke about the A12. I understand that the Highways Agency is aware of the issues and is trying to manage the traffic flows better through electronic messaging and so forth. I realise that his request was for more investment, and I will pass that message on to the Department for Transport. However, I would like to defend the allocation of funding around the regions and remind him that grants are made in the light of circumstances, not politics.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) proved what a hard-working Member she is by coming in to make a speech on her birthday, and I would like to join others in congratulating her on that, as well as congratulating the people of Immingham on the 400th anniversary of the Pilgrim Fathers. I would also like to congratulate North Lincolnshire council on its excellent implementation of the bus pass extension. What sounded particularly good about its scheme was the flexibility involving trains.
	The hon. Member for Uxbridge raised a number of issues, including the size of the Marine Bill. The Bill is as large as it is because it includes a plain English version so that more people will be able to read and understand it more easily. He spoke about his daughter, who is a very good rugby player. The Government take the issue of women's and girls' participation in sport seriously, which is why Kelly Holmes is the national school sport champion; she also chairs something called the GirlsActive service.
	The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon spoke about the serious problems faced by his hill farmers and of the coastal erosion of the Burrows. I would remind him that spending on coastal erosion has doubled, and by 2010 it will be £800 million. He made a wide-ranging speech, which I felt in the end became a rural version of Monty Python's "I lived in a shoebox" sketch. I found that I could not reconcile the number and severity of the problems that he raised with my picture of Bideford, which I know to be an exceptionally beautiful place where my parents-in-law met. I would also remind him that the decision on bovine tuberculosis is one that will be taken in the light of scientific, not sentimental interests.
	The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute spoke about the problems his constituents have in taking motorcycling tests. His constituents have an exceptionally long journey to take, and I understand that that is a problem for them. I will take his concerns to the Department for Transport, although I am sure that he will understand that in rural areas and in western Scotland, access will not be as close as it is for those in large cities. He asked about the delay in the shipbuilding contract, and I refer him to a parliamentary answer given in the Lords last week, which explained that the main manufacturing contract for the aircraft carriers will be made when the commercial arrangements and the work schedule have been completed.
	The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Davies) spoke about his constituency. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) is to be congratulated on having made the most efficient speech of the afternoon, raising 14 issues in 10 minutes.
	The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) talked about immigration. I would like to point out that this Government's policy is not to have uncontrolled immigration, which is why we are introducing a points-based system. We are also investing in skills and training for people in this country so that they can benefit from economic opportunities. All those policies on increasing participation in higher education and increasing the number of apprenticeships were opposed by Conservative Members.
	It only remains for me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to thank you and all the members of staff who work for us so assiduously throughout the year, and I wish everybody a very pleasant and restful April recess.

Edward Davey: I, too, wish you a happy Easter recess, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I am presenting another petition against post office closures, on behalf of thousands of local residents in Kingston and Surbiton constituency, who oppose proposals to close five local post offices in the area. I am grateful for the help of the  Surrey Comet, local newsagents and the thousands of local residents who signed the petition. There are just over 4,500 signatures at the time of presenting the petition, although more are coming in every day.
	The petitioners call on Post Office Ltd to drop the plans to close the five post offices because they provide an essential service to the local community. Many vulnerable people will be hit by the plans if they go ahead, especially the elderly and disabled, not to mention the many businesses and other residents who will be harmed.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of local residents in constituency of Kingston and Surbiton,
	Declares that Post Offices on Surbiton Road, Hook Rise South, Burlington Road, and at Norbiton Common and Plough Green are of great importance to the local community and economy.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reject proposals by Post Office Ltd to withdraw services from these post offices, in recognition of their importance to the local community and economy, and the absence of suitable alternatives.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.,
	[P000170]

Barry Gardiner: I believe
	"that there is no problem in this country that can't be solved by the people of this country. Millions of people choose to bring about social change and to solve the problems we face through the third sector. In every part of our society, voluntary organisations, community groups and social enterprises are making people's lives better, are fighting inequality and are creating a better environment for us to live in."
	If the Minister thinks that that is an uncharacteristically grandiloquent opening statement for one of my speeches in the House, the reason is that I did not write it. It is the statement that the Prime Minister made in his foreword to the Cabinet Office report on the future role of the third sector in social and economic regeneration. Not for the first time, he was absolutely correct to identify the fact that week in, week out, day in, day out, the British people—often quietly and often on their own—work to bring about social change and improve the lot of their fellow citizens and others around the globe.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and other colleagues in the Cabinet Office on their extraordinary engagement and on the Government's commitment to developing the third sector, not least through the £500 million that they are investing in it in the current comprehensive spending review round. However, I am not here simply to congratulate the Government; I am here to ask the Minister to consider one way in which we might be able to help the charities in our country to make an even stronger impact on social change than they do now.
	At the end of December last year, there were 190,541 charities on the Charity Commission register. Of those, 21,244 were subsidiaries or constituents of other charities. That means that there were 169,299 main charities on the register, which are required to prepare accounts. That figure includes 2,498 group charities, which are separate charities that nevertheless share the same registered number, because they have been grouped together for ease of administration.
	When the income of those charities is broken down and itemised against the individual charities, a remarkable pattern emerges. Many of those 169,299 so-called main charities are very small indeed. Indeed, one fifth of them—more than 35,000 charities—have an income of less than £1,000 a year. Nearly 60 per cent. of all registered charities in the UK have an income of less than £10,000 a year. More than 95,000 charities—almost 60 per cent.—have a combined income of less than 1 per cent. of the total charitable income each year.
	The financial wealth of registered charities, measured by their annual incomes, is concentrated in a few very large charities indeed. Just 8 per cent. of charities receive more than 90 per cent. of the total annual income recorded on the Charity Commission register. Perhaps most extraordinarily of all, out of the 169,299 main charities, a tiny minority—just 679—attract more than 50 per cent. of the total income, so that £22.4 billion goes to 0.4 per cent. of all charities.
	I want to make it clear that I am in no way speaking against big charities. They do wonderful work, and I applaud their professionalism and success. I want to focus on the logical implications for the 92 per cent. of charities that operate on only 10 per cent. of the total income. That 92 per cent. represents 142,367 charities, all of which seek and apply for funds, accrue administration and funding costs, and have staff and trustees who are passionate about and devoted to their cause—yet those charities often compete with others in their field, rather than collaborating with each other.
	I do not want to stop any charity, or any person in any charity, doing their bit to make a world a better place by alleviating suffering, promoting education, finding a cure for disease, protecting animals, cleaning up the environment or reducing poverty. However, I hope that the Minister agrees that there must be a more efficient and effective way of harnessing all the incredible human resources, commitment and good will that those 142,367 organisations represent.
	The question presents itself: how much more effective could those charities be if there were an easier, cost-effective, integrated and secure way of generating a steady revenue stream into their good causes? What if they did not have to rely on the jumble sale, the bucket collection, the Christmas raffle or the fun run as their main fundraising event of the year?
	Charitable fundraising in the UK has developed enormously in the past decade or so. It is now possible to donate to television appeals such as Sport Relief or Children in Need by giving credit card details over the phone. It is possible to donate over the internet, or even by downloading a British Legion poppy as the background image for one's mobile phone. All of that is tremendous. Ease of giving is one of the most important elements of charitable giving.
	Just as important, however, is the research that shows that people prefer to donate to the charities that have the lowest cost overheads. The CharityFacts website, set up by Professor Adrian Sargeant at the Bristol business school, states that, in general, it costs between 15p and 25p to raise £1. The average gearing is 1:5, with 20 per cent. of income spent on fundraising. That increases slightly with face-to-face collections, to between 20 and 25 per cent., whereas text message donations give almost as much money to the mobile phone company as to the good cause.
	According to research carried out by the university of London, the reason why collection tins continue to be one of the most popular ways for the public to give money is that such giving is spontaneous. In fact, spontaneous giving accounts for 83 per cent. of giving in this country. Planned donations account for just 17 per cent. Here, we begin to see a recipe: low overheads, quick and easy, and spontaneous. Convenience and immediacy are key drivers. How can we turn that formula into a means of resolving the issues that beset the 142,367 charities, all with administrative and fundraising costs, that are competing with one another?
	Let us imagine a situation in which, whenever anyone in the UK purchased anything in a supermarket, a petrol station, a clothes shop or any retail outlet where they could pay by credit card, they had the opportunity to round up the cost of their purchase to the nearest whole pound. Let us imagine that, instead of purchasing a camera for £69.99, they could send the extra penny to bring water to an African village or to campaign for human rights in Burma. Which one of us would not do that? Pennies4Change is a new charity that has set up a mechanism for precisely such fundraising. It is efficient and convenient, with low overheads. It is quick, easy and spontaneous. With luck, it might also be habit-forming.
	Pennies4Change integrates seamlessly into the global financial payments system. On the card reader at the payment terminal, the customer will be discreetly invited to round up their transaction. One touch of the green button will round it up to the nearest pound. One touch of the red button will decline. If neither button is pressed within a couple of seconds, the default cuts in to decline and no donation is made, ensuring that there are no lengthy queues at the till. No new card is required, and the consumer does not need to sign up to anything. No staff intervention is needed. It simply involves a spontaneous choice with each purchase.
	For the retailer, too, the process is straightforward. No new hardware is required, just a small change to the software running alongside the existing payments chip and pin system, all co-ordinated through the card-acquiring bank. The innovative technology that makes Pennies4Change possible applies just as much to the local corner shop as to the large supermarket chains.
	Equally, the shared platform for all those retailers requires the collaborative effort of the acquiring banks. Pennies4Change gives the banks an opportunity to be seen to work together to enable the generosity of the British people to be released. It will drive down that 20 per cent. average overhead of charitable fundraising, increasing the effectiveness of charities, and it aims to improve their efficiency by promoting co-ordination and partnership.
	What, then, am I asking of my hon. Friend the Minister? First, I hope that he will wish to congratulate Pennies4Change on bringing charitable giving into the electronic age. Secondly—in the light of my points about income and gearing—I ask him to arrange for his officials, as part of their work on the third sector, to investigate how Government can help these charities to achieve their aims. I suggest that he ask his officials to meet members of Pennies4Change, who have already done much work in this area.
	Finally, I ask the Minister to recognise that the greatest threat to the success of this project lies in fragmentation. Pennies4Change is not about a few people giving occasionally; it is about the impact of millions of people giving very small amounts every day; it is about the power of pennies. However, its success will come from the simplicity of a single scheme that is undifferentiated across the country. Would my hon. Friend consider meeting a group of the major retailers and banks, which I would be happy to convene for him, in order to ensure that there is common and united action, and that different multiples and majors do not attempt selfishly to brand this good idea with their own logo, thus undermining the simplicity, integrity and national unity of the scheme?
	In the foreword that I quoted at the beginning, the Prime Minister went on to say:
	"At the heart of our approach is our desire to support those thousands of small community organisations who play such a vital role in our society. We want them to be free to access the funding or advice they need in a way that suits them."
	For 142,367 of the smallest charities in the United Kingdom, Pennies4Change does just that, and fulfils the Prime Minister's objective. I trust that the Minister will be able to support it.